|
||
|
| |
Formerly Mad, Bad or Sad? |
| |
|
||
|
||
|
| |
Formerly Mad, Bad or Sad? |
| |
|
||
Critical Estoppel Writings |
 |
||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
Introduction In this essay, the main protagonists of the Classical Tradition of Criminology, i.e. Beccaria and Bentham, will be considered. It concentrates on the primary propositions of these early ‘criminologists’ and highlights the limitations of this approach, which paved the way for later criminological theories. Discussion Prior to the ‘Enlightenment’, law was defined and enforced, based on the Divine Right of the ruler. The whole process was, essentially, arbitrary, and there were no formal procedures or legal representation for the participants. Superstition was rife, where possession by evil spirits or Lucifer, himself, was seen to be a reasonable explanation for antisocial behaviour. Following the influence of many thinkers, such as Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke, Bacon, Newton and Descartes, belief in reason began to dominate. From the foundations of Natural Law, Science and The Social Contract, new thoughts on criminality blossomed. The Italian, Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794), drawing on the concept of free will, leading to rational (if negative) action, proposed that punishment be proportional to the offence and that example be used as deterrence, in the general sense. Although Beccaria believed that punishment needed to be, relatively, harsh, for effect, he was against torture and capital punishment, proposed equality before the law (which should be specific and few in number) and that court proceedings and structures should be representative of society (including that one should be innocent until proven guilty). The British scholar, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) drew heavily on Beccaria’s fundamentals, but tended to avoid the more ‘humanistic’ aspects, hence his ‘Utilitarianism’ constructs. For example, the torture of one person could be justified, if the result was beneficial for the majority. Essentially drawing on the Pleasure-Pain Principle of human action, Bentham (1776), cited in Roberts (2004), states "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong." Nonetheless, although their emphases may have been different, during the 19th century, these two men had a substantial influence on the restructuring of international legal systems and in the reduction of capital punishment. The primary drawbacks associated with this school, are that, although offences may be used as measure of the punishment ‘required’, offenders are not all the same (e.g. the mentally ill and children) and that offences could be accidental rather than premeditated. This led, partly, to the creation of Neo-classical school, which attempted to come to terms with these issues. This, is turn, paved the way for the more rationale schools, such as that of the ‘Positivists’. Conclusion It is claimed, that the origin of the ‘Classical’ description of this school (as opposed to that of the later ‘Positivists’), is a reflection of how latter scholars saw their approach as being ‘more scientific’. This was in comparison to that of Beccaria and Bentham, whose approaches were deemed to be more ‘Philosophical’ (i.e. originating from Plato, Aristotle and Cicero, thus, ‘classical’). The ‘Classicists’ also avoided religious dogma (i.e. the writings of St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas) in defining their ‘criminological’ theories, preferring the notion of free will. It would appear, that many of these fundamental beliefs are being revisited, today, amongst the general populace, and certainly in the those members of society belonging to Neo-Conservative, religiously-zealot, right-wing schools of thought.
References Beccaria, C. (1764), Of Crimes and Punishments, <http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/ study/xbec.htm#27.3> [Accessed 4 December, 2004] (university reference web page). Bentham, J. (1776), A Fragment on Government, <http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/xBen.htm#Bentham1776> [Accessed 5 December, 2004] (university reference web page). Blackstone W. (1776), Extracts from William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England 1765-1769, <http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/xblack.htm> [Accessed 5 December, 2004] (university reference web page). Johnson L. (2004), Introduction to Criminology (lecture notes). Jones, S. (2001), Criminology, Butterworths (LexiNexis), London (book). Roberts, A. (2004), Crimtim, A Criminology and Deviancy Theory History Timeline, based on Taylor, I., Walton, P. and Young, J. (1973), The New Criminology. For a Social Theory of Deviance, <http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/crimtim.htm> [Accessed 4 December, 2004] (university reference web page).
|
|||
|
|||
Introduction The ‘Realistic’ schools of criminology are relatively new, but they have had a major societal impact, here and elsewhere. ‘Right Realism’ emerged in the USA and ‘Left Realism’ in the UK, both developing during the mid-nineteen eighties to the mid-nineteen nineties. This essay will consider how valid and effective each school of thought is by presenting a critical view of each of them. Discussion (A) Left and Right Realism Young (1996) states: "A silent revolution has occurred in conventional criminology in the United States and in Great Britain. The demise of positivism and social democratic ways of reforming crime has been rapid. A few perceptive commentators noted the sea-change in the orthodox centre of criminology but the extent of the paradigm shift has been scarcely analysed, or its likely impact understood" (p. 442). Ericson and Carriere (1994: 91) were also considering such issues, at that time. Since then, other authors have chosen to comment, including Smart (1996: 454), Carlen (1996: 475), Malossi, D. (2000: 166), Jones (2001: 239) and Williams (2001: 459), amongst others. Johnson (2005) has identified how Left and Right Realistic criminological approaches may be assessed in terms of how they ‘cure’ crime, and criticisms which have evolved about each approach. A number of these will be used as the basis of this evaluation. Some are direct statements of the work, some are paraphrases. (B) An Evaluation of Right Realism - as a ‘cure’ (i) It attempts to control behaviour (such as incivility) before it develops into a crime For example, in the United Kingdom, this has resulted in the, now widespread, application of ‘ASBOs’, recently audited by Blears (2005). This is now reaching proportions which have begun to impact on Human Rights, if not humanity. There is no evidence, at this time, that the fear of crime (or crime) has reduced in the populace, due to this approach. It will have had a short-term placating function. Other incivilities, such as ‘threat to kill’ have also been enforced more harshly, in cases which would have been viewed as ‘misplaced bravado’ in the past, as reported in the case of Maxine Carr’s mother (Ananova (2004)). Home Detention Curfews (‘tagging’) and the proposed, but controversial, ‘House Detentions’, are also a result of such approaches (although, in many cases, they are a ploy to reduce prison numbers). (ii) It believes that the role of the police is to control and regulate undesirable (although not necessarily criminal) behaviour that indicates social decline The behaviour of the police, during the industrial action carried out by the mining community, in the early nineteen eighties, is a clear illustration of this approach. The creation of a ‘National Police Force’, at the time, ensured that the Thatcher government could quash any effective social protest, as the police forces ensured demonstrators were barred from travelling (quite legally) from one place to another. Such behaviour also led to the widespread ‘race riots’, across the United Kingdom, during the same period. (iii) It expects zero tolerance to noisy children, begging, littering and youths hanging around the streets Although popular some years ago, this is faltering in its application (for example, the decriminalisation of cannabis). Other than the application of ASBOs in politically and socially sensitive parts of the UK, zero tolerance has been seen to be, essentially, unworkable, expect at times and in locations where political gain is desirable. Once again, it may provide an increased ‘feel-good-factor’ in the populace. (iv) It focuses attention on those areas which are at risk of tipping society into decline As crime has shifted to the most more ‘leafy’ and rural areas, from the typically ‘crime-ridden’ urban locations, so these localities have been more vocal and have created more effective lobbying groups. (v) It sees imprisonment as effective in dealing with crime, because it incapacitates the offender and acts as a deterrent to potential offenders Offending, re-offending and recidivism figures do not confirm this belief. (C) An Evaluation of Right Realism - a critique (i) It is only interested in visible street crime This being at the expense of ignoring corporate, white collar and many other hidden crimes (such a domestic abuse, of all types). (ii) It concentrates on the individual and their immediate socialising environment, thereby managing to ignore possible wider social and structural factors (iii) It refers to the materialistic nature of youth but fails to acknowledge that right-wing polices contributed to materialistic and individualistic nature of society (iv) It blames incivilities for urban decline when they may well be a symptom of wider structural factors (v) It resigns itself to the fact that certain areas are beyond improvement, thereby deflecting resources away from areas in most need (vi) By invoking The Order Model of policing, this encourages lack of police accountability and can alienate sections of the community. This is compounded by the right-wing accepting the official definitions of criminal behaviour Thus, for the Right Realists, ‘success’ is dependent on populist foundations. Just as the populace can only draw (in general) on simplistic and uninformed (or even misinformed) knowledge bases, so the whole approach offers only simplistic and short- term solutions - if that is what they are. The Right Realists cannot account for unequivocal differences in local crime rates, which are clearly related to the socio-economics of those areas. They seem unconcerned with the abuse of power by the police and other agencies (including major private and public institutions), and are quick to criticise the application of basic Human Rights and similar legislation. They blame the very localities, suffering crime, for their own state of affairs, and if they are not willing to change, then the Realists are happy to let the areas fall into total decline, failing to grasp the implications of this for the whole society. Finally, they are happy to maintain the spiralling costs and social outcomes of incarceration, and the continuance of capital punishment (in some USA states), although, just recently, this has been reconsidered in the case of juveniles (Daily Mail (2005)). (D) An Evaluation of Left Realism - as a ‘cure’ (i) As initiatives are required at all four corners of the square of crime (Young (1992: 24-68, 2000: 43)), this encourages multi-agency support There is no doubt that ‘joined-up’ consultation is now popular (e.g. MAPPPs). However, this is predominantly victim-focused, rather than concerning itself with offender rehabilitation and reintegration. (ii) It stresses the importance of community involvement, both in terms of identifying local problems and dealing with them It may stress them, but it is safe to say that community involvement still remains relatively minor. (iii) Wider social improvements remain on the agenda along with short-term aims for helping potential victims and support for actual victims Victimology has developed alongside Realism. It is debatable how much time, money and effort spent on victims (thus, attempting to reduce the fear of crime) may deter further offending in others. However, restorative justice and meditation seem to be making some useful in-roads, in these areas. (iv) It advocates sensitive community policing based on minimal intervention Although this seems a noble aim, it is difficult to dispel the public’s desire to see ‘bobbies on the beat’. This is perceived as being a prerequisite of a safe society. Of course, this is soon questioned, when the public, themselves, are challenged by police/wardens etc. in their own locality. (v) It also suggests reform of the criminal justice system, especially in the way it deals with less serious offenders (it does not believe in the deterrent effect of imprisonment) (E) An Evaluation of Left Realism - a critique (i) Emphasis on local consultation makes the likelihood of minimal police intervention unlikely (ii) Some types of crime require proactive, interventionist policing strategies (iii) The emphasis on local consultation would probably result in prioritisation of street crime over other types of crime (iv) The democratic approach could result in greater marginalisation of minority groups Thus, for the Left Realists, they are happy to pursue ‘fear of crime’ agenda in the development of polices and in possible solution. These fears may be misplaced, although understandable, since much of this fear probably stems more from media reporting and, less than critical, victim surveys etc. The emphasis on the empowerment of victims is a noble aim, but rarely leads to any real constructive outcomes - victims are often angry people. This leads to minority groups often becoming unsuspecting and undeserving victims. The role of the police is often confused, and there is a tension between accountability and discretion. This leads to inconsistencies of action by the police and in the expectations of the locality. Relative Depravation is a well-founded Left Realistic concept. It is part of the human, hunter-gatherer nature, that, the more it has - the more it wants. With many organisations offering more and more, it is small wonder that expectations increase and cannot be satisfied by legal measures. So one can work themselves into an early grave, accumulate unmanageable debts or turn to crime to satiate those needs. This will be a major sociological problem in the near future (indeed, it already is). Conclusion In these days of global, free-market economies and individualistic, materialistic concerns (which are unsustainable), many fail to recognise (or accept) the damage which has been done. Right Realistic approaches have created a time bomb (almost literally, in some cases, as the USA experience of 9/11 showed). By the development of more and more laws, to tackle more and more minor or widespread ‘crimes’, the intelligence, policing, judicial and penal systems are creaking under the strain - this is true here and elsewhere. Only money supports this approach (e.g. build new prisons, employ more probation officers etc.) and that cannot last indefinitely. The recent governments, in particular ‘New Labour’, have mixed the ‘toughness’ of the Right Realistic approaches with the more ‘touchy-freely’ aspects of Left Realism. This has resulted in the ‘spin-doctored’, confused, unstable and unsustainable position that exists at this time. Few are now concerned with (or willing to make the effort required to analyse) a rational, empirical and equitable understating of society, and improving the social coherence of that society. Many are only interested in personal gain, within their secure, fenced ‘communities’, drawing on myth and morality as their emotional support system. ’Realism’ supports this, and creates the societal divides which many of the ‘Realists’ (and, in particular, ‘The Right’) were aiming for in the first place; their job is done.
References Ananova (2004), ‘Maxine Carr's mother is jailed’, 22 July, 2004, <http://www.ananova. com/news/story/sm_1030516.html?menu=news.latestheadlines> [Accessed 22 July, 2004] (media web page): "The mother of Maxine Carr has been jailed for six months for intimidating a witness in the Soham murder trial. Shirley Capp, 61, from Grimsby, was found guilty last month of threatening her neighbour Marion Westerman. Today at Sheffield Crown Court, Judge John Reddihough, said he had no choice but to jail Capp because to do otherwise would be to "send out completely the wrong message"." Blears, H. (2005), Commons Hansard - Monday 1 Mar 2005, <http://www.parliament. the-stationeryoffice.co.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/cm050301/wmstext/50301m02. htm#50301m02.html_sbhd1> [Accessed 4 March, 2005] (governmental web page): "Antisocial Behaviour Orders The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): I am announcing today statistics relating to antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs). An ASBO is a civil order which protects the community from behaviour that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as the perpetrator. ASBOs were introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and have been available since April 1999. ASBOs can be issued to anyone aged 10 years or over. They impose restrictions on the behaviour of individuals who have behaved in an anti-social way and protect communities from often longstanding and highly intimidating activity. Breach of an ASBO is a criminal offence and can lead to custody. The maximum penalty for breach of an ASBO is five years imprisonment or a fine of up to £5,000 for an adult offender. The Home Office is notified by all courts of ASBOs issued. Data on the number of ASBOs issued is updated quarterly. New figures for the period up to September 2004 are now available. For the period between April 1999 and September 2004 the number of ASBOs issued, as reported to the Home Office, is 3826. Nearly 20 per cent. of these (730) were issued in the most recent quarter (July to September 2004). Of those ASBOs issued, 50 per cent. were to adults and 45 per cent. to juveniles, 5 per cent. of ASBOs are age unknown. Some 59 per cent. were orders on application, 41 per cent. are orders on conviction. Data on breach is updated annually. Information on breach of orders is obtained from the court proceedings database. This data is matched with the data we hold on actual ASBOs issued. Until now data for the period from June 2000 to December 2002 which is based on 855 ASBOs issued during this period was available. However, data up to December 2003 is now available, based on 1892 ASBOs issued up to this period. This data shows that 42 per cent. of all ASBOs were breached, compared to 36 per cent. for the period up to December 2002. Of those persons who breached their ASBO on one or more occasions, 55 per cent. received immediate custody on the first or later occasion. The figure for young people is 46 per cent. receiving immediate custody. The majority of those who receive custody for breach of an ASBO are persistent offenders. Of those entering custody, 31 per cent. were dealt with for breach of ASBO alone. Only 17 per cent. (30) juveniles received a custodial sentence for breach of ASBO alone, the remaining 83 per cent. were also sentenced for other offences." Carlen, P. (1996), ‘Criminal women and criminal justice: the limits to, and potential of, feminist and left realist perspectives, in Criminological Perspectives - A Reader Muncie, J., McLaughlin, E. and Langan, M. (eds.), Sage, London (book). Daily Mail (2005), ‘US bans death penalty for juveniles’, 1 March, 2005, <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=339714& in_page_id=1770> [Accessed 1 March, 2005] (media web page): "The US Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes the Supreme Cort ruled, ending a practice used in 19 states. The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes. The executions, the court said, were unconstitutionally cruel." Ericson, R. and Carriere, K. (1994), ‘The fragmentation of criminology’, in The Futures of Criminology Nelken, D. (ed.), Sage, London (book). Johnson, L. (2005), Introduction to Criminology, Doncaster College (lecture notes). Jones, S. (2001), Criminology, Butterworths (LexiNexis), London (book). Malossi, D. (2000), ‘Changing representations of the criminal’, in Criminology and Social Theory Garland, D. and Sparks, R. (eds.), Oxford University Press (book). McLaughlin, E., Muncie, J. and Hughes, G. (2003) (eds.), Criminological Perspectives - Essential Readings, 2nd edition, Sage, London (book). Smart, C. (1996), ‘Feminist approaches to criminology or post-modern woman meets atavistic man’, in Criminological Perspectives - A Reader Muncie, J., McLaughlin, E. and Langan, M. (eds.), Sage, London (book). Williams, K.S. (2001), Textbook on Criminology, 4th Edition, Oxford University Press (book). Young, A. (1996), Imagining Crime, Sage, London (book). Young, J. (2002), ‘Ten points of realism’, in Criminology - A Reader Jewkes, Y. and Letherby, G. (eds.), Sage, London (book). Young, J. (1992), ‘Ten points of realism’, in Rethinking Criminology: The Realistic Debate in Young, J. and Matthews, R. (eds.), Sage, London (book). Young, J. (1996), ‘The failure of criminology: the need for a radical realism’, in Criminological Perspectives - A Reader Muncie, J., McLaughlin, E. and Langan, M. (eds.), Sage, London (book).
|
|||
|
|||
Introduction This essay will explore the concepts of Conformity, Deviance and Crime, and the response of the, present-day, English and Welsh criminal justice system, in its attempt to maintain Social Control. Discussion Social Control and Deviance From Durkheim’s cultural and technological shift, to Marx’s class-based struggle, models, the control of society has been a constantly-explored aspect of human society, and is recognised as one of the main contributors to the existent of society, itself. Conformity is the linchpin around which social control theories rotate. A discussion amongst the general populace will lead to statements about criminal acts being "not normal", "unnatural" or just plain "wrong". However, if one is to suggest that much of the social control process is the restriction, reduction and removal of instinct-driven behaviour, then, the breaking of laws is inevitable, and even useful, if Durkheim is to be believed. Hence, the very act of rebellion against conformity is the most natural and normal thing in the world, by this measure. Put simply by Williams (2001): "There is clearly nothing natural about conformity, as most of our formative years are spent learning what is permitted behaviour and what is not, and often why the difference exists. Parents at home, teachers at school and other individuals in the community, particularly the social control agencies such as formal religious bodies, the police and the courts, spend a lot of time and effort in controlling each of us" (p. 367). Keel (2004) informs the reader: "Everyone, everywhere is subjected to certain norms "Norms imply that violators will be punished or sanctioned. There is NOT and has NEVER been a society where "anything goes." It would not last long. Thus, some minimal level of punishment of wrongdoing is necessary to ensure a minimal level of social order. But: Most norms attempt to discourage behavior that neither directly harms anyone, nor threatens the society with chaos and disintegration. They are intended to make a statement about what is considered by some, many, or most members of a society to be right, good and proper. They embody certain principles of moral correctness separate and independent of what they do for the society's physical survival. So, we are expected to do certain things because they are right and that's the way they are done" (website). Williams (2001) confirms this, in her statement: "Each society makes rules and tries to restrict its members to partake only in activities which are acceptable to the social order. ... Criminality is therefore the breakdown of the socialisation process" (p. 368). Social control may be sub-divided into two main categories (along with Internal, External and Semiformal measures (Keel (2004)): (a) Informal Social Control Originating from custom and local expectations i.e. ·
Home and parents Primary methods of socialisation ·
Bribery and reward (b) Formal Social Control Originating from codes that a society abides by (i.e. historically-derived from leaders [e.g. royalty], religion and/or parliamentary-type structures [i.e. ‘the people’], and may, or may not, have been built on Consensus) i.e. ·
Laws Primary methods of socialisation ·
Punishment and rehabilitation Clearly, there are times when these two methods of social control overlap, e.g. in the case of a known sex offender being punished for their crime and then returning to his or her locality. For an individual to be seen as not conforming to the social mores of the time, they must adopt the modus operandi of the Deviant, as described on the Labor Law Talk website (2005): "Deviant behavior is behavior that is a recognized violation of cultural norms. Formal and informal social controls attempt to prevent and minimize deviance. One such control is through the medicalization of deviance. Crime, the violation of formally enacted law, is formal deviance while an informal social violation such as picking one's nose is an example of informal deviance. It also means not doing what the majority does or alternatively doing what the majority does not do. For instance, behaviors caused by cultural difference can be seen as deviance. It does not necessarily mean criminal behavior ... ·
Deviance varies according to cultural norms Functions of deviance ·
Affirms cultural values and norms Hence, by this measure, local deviants throughout history include Jack The Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe, and Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, whereas, internationally, such people as Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela were deviants of their time and place. Cultural norms may shift rapidly, on a geological time scale. Only recently, homosexuality was defined as a psychiatric disorder by the American Psychiatric Association (indeed, Christian fundamentalists in the USA are still ‘curing this condition’). Even there, it was accepted as ’normal’ in 1973, as documented by Socarides (1978): "On December 14, 1973 the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association, meeting in Washington, D.C., eliminated homosexuality from the official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual without presenting substantive evidence for such a drastic revision of basic concepts of healthy vs. unhealthy sexual development" (website). ‘Advanced implications’ of being such a deviant were described by Lemert (1967): "Becoming an admitted homosexual (`coming out') may endanger one's livelihood or professional career, but it also absolves the individual from failure to assume the heavy responsibilities of marriage and parenthood, and it is a ready way of fending off painful involvements in heterosexual affairs" (p. 48). Such implications account for the depressive and sad lives of many deviants in the past, the present and, without doubt, the future. This often leads to the ultimate sacrifice - that of suicide. One of the main catalysts, for such personal destruction, is the Labelling of deviants, particularly when the power and authority of formal social control measures have impinged on the deviant’s life. Labelling has been described on Labor Law Talk (2005), originating from the work of Mead (1934): "The self as a social product", Tannenbaum (1938): differential perspectives and "Tagging" and Lemert (1951): Primary and Secondary Deviance: "Labelling is the process by which deviance is recognized" (website). One of the major influences on reducing the damage created by labelling is that of Tolerance. The Formal Social Control Structure - The Criminal Justice System "So we want zero tolerance of anti-social behaviour" (Blair 2000). The agents of formal social control have been identified earlier in this work. The influence of Right Realism has been described in an earlier work by the author, and the following was stated (Oldfield 2005): "The recent governments, in particular ‘New Labour’, have mixed the ‘toughness’ of the Right Realistic approaches with the more ‘touchy-freely’ aspects of Left Realism. This has resulted in the ‘spin-doctored’, confused, unstable and unsustainable position that exists at this time" (p.5). England and Wales are suggested to be part of a democracy, as described by Labor Law Talk (2005): "In democratic societies the goals and mechanisms of social control are determined through legislation by elected representatives and thus enjoy a measure of support from the population and voluntary compliance" (website). However, unlike the United States of America, England and Wales do not have a written constitution (if any at all) and true freedom of speech is often curtailed or distorted. Overall, the people of these countries find themselves subject to the most draconian western criminal justice system in the developed world. The Police and HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) (soon to become part of ‘The Serious Organised Crime Agency’ - SOCA) form the first level of formal social control. Over the past few years, a number of senior officers have taken it upon themselves to comment, publicly, on political policy and in the shaping of law; this is dangerous. The third agency is that of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which has been adequately described by Burnham (2005): "The CPS was founded less than twenty years ago, and so has no ‘traditions’, as the term would be understood in the other two agencies, but it will already have ‘characteristics’. It has had a quite turbulent short life, and has been described to the author, who has no personal experience with the CPS, as the most secretive agency in the criminal justice system" (website). The fourth agency is that of the Judiciary, with its pretence that judges do not make law, only interpret it. The making of those laws and their recent proliferation, will not be discussed here. The final stage of this sorry machine is the Penal System of prisons and community orders, under the auspices of Her Majesty’s Prison Service and National Probation Service. Once the deviant has passed through this expensive, sluggish, archaic, creaking and hypocritical process, they are dropped back into society. Further labelling and minimal support means that many are destined to travel this path, once again. These agencies have become, worryingly, ‘joined up’ and mechanistic over the last two decades, where vested interests have begun to distort what justice was supposed to be. This has been discussed, recently, by Hughes (2004): "... advocates of crime prevention as a viable political alternative to 'law and order' need to recognise that crime prevention and community safety must 'work' at the symbolic and normative levels, associated with the advocacy of social inclusion, social justice and non-punitive and restorative principles. Accordingly, the challenge for a critical criminology of crime prevention and public safety may be to aspire to satisfy these goals rather than the currently fashionable 'pragmatic', 'instrumental' and 'technical' goals of managing the processes of the state's strategies of crime reduction management" (p. 180). Finally, let the reader be under no illusion, that formal social engineering is taking place, with this telling example of just one aspect of social control in today’s ‘advanced civilised society’, from Couture (2004):
Conclusion Since criminality is ... the breakdown of the socialisation process, and social mores (which guide the construction of socialisation processes) are fashioned differently, due to cultural relativism and basic human needs, then crime is inevitable. As UK society continues to, unrealistically, expect more, but, adamantly, give less, socialisation processes are becoming more draconian and widespread rebellion is now, perhaps, inevitable; history has illustrated this, many times.
References Blair, A.C.L. (2000), My 10 year plan to wipe out poverty, Tony Blair’s appeals for tolerance, justice & freedom - extracts from speech transcripts, 12 April 2000, <http://www.huntfacts.com/Blair%20speeches.htm> [Accessed 14 May, 2005] (advocacy web page). Burnham, R.W. (2005), The organisation of social control, Foresight, http://www. foresight.gov.uk/Previous_Rounds/Foresight_1999__2002/Crime_Prevention/Reports/essay2.htm> [Accessed 14 May, 2005] (‘thinktank’ web page). Couture, L.A. (2004), The Hypocrisy Chronicles, Medicate Childhood, <http://www.child advocate.org/9a.htm, http://www.childadvocate.org/comics/medicatechildhood.jpg> [Accessed 14 May, 2005] (advocacy web page). Hughes, G. (2004), ‘Crime Prevention, Community Safety, and Crime and Disorder Reduction’ in Muncie J. and Wilson D. (eds), Student Handbook of Criminal Justice and Criminology, London, Cavendish (book). Keel, R.O. (2004), Deviance and Social Control, from Goode, 2000 and 2005, chapters 1 and 3, <http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/200/socialcontrol.htm> [Accessed 15 May, 2005] (educational web page). Labor Law Talk (2005), Deviant Behavior, <http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/ Deviant_behavior> [Accessed 15 May, 2005] (reference web page). Labor Law Talk (2005), Social Control, <http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Control_ (sociology)> [Accessed 15 May, 2005] (reference web page). Lemert, E.M. (1967), Human Deviance, Social Problems and Social Control, New York, Prentice-Hall (book). Oldfield, N.L. (2005), Evaluate the similarities and differences between Left and Right Realism, Introduction to Criminology (LC403) (assignment). Socarides, C.W. (1978), The Sexual Deviations and the Diagnostic Manual, American Journal of Psychotherapy, Volume XXXII, Number 3, July 1978, http://www. narth.com/docs/annals.html> [Accessed 15 May, 2005] (reference web page). Wikipedia (2004), Social Control, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_control> [Accessed 15 May, 2005] (reference web page). Williams, K.S. (2001), Textbook on Criminology, 4th Edition, Oxford University Press (book).
|
|||
|
|||
The Creation of the Sex Offender and Paedophile Noveau "A concerned citizen once asked a criminologist what could be done about child molestation. "Don't molest your children," he replied. The truth behind this response is undeniable. Most sexual misconduct happens within families or among friends ..." (Lotke, 2003). "Believing, as I do, in the forgiveness of sins and the redemption of ignorance ..." (Townsend, 1978). Introduction In this essay, the recent moral panic surrounding the case of the Education Secretary, Ruth Kelly, and the employment of 'convicted child offenders' or 'child sex offenders', particularly in schools, is explored. A brief history of the sexual history and legislation is presented, and the false labelling of the 'paedophile' and 'sex offender' is illustrated. Discussion (1) How Many Paedophiles? On the 9th January 2006, Taylor et al (2006), of the Daily Mail, informed the world, that: "MINISTER APPROVED PAEDOPHILE TO TEACH PE". It is not possible, here, to discuss the nature of the paraphilia which is 'Paedophilia' (USA pedophilia), in any great detail, but it is enlightening to consider the words of Silverman and Wilson (2002), on their reference to Foucault's (1998) description of a: " ... farm hand from the village of Lapcourt, who was somewhat simple-minded ... was turned in to the authorities. At the border of a field, he had obtained a few caresses from a little girl, just as he had done before and seen done by the village urchins round about him; for, at the edge of the wood, or in the ditch by the road leading to Saint Nicholas, they would play the familiar game called "curdled milk" (p. 29). The emphasis in Silverman and Wilson's work was: " ... we have attempted to see "offending" and "crime" not as something that is fixed in concrete, but rather as something which responds to anxieties within society as a whole at particular points in time ... Indeed ... this is exactly what ... Foucault is alluding to with his story ... The question of why in 1867 this "everyday occurrence in the life of village sexuality" became of interest to the authorities echoes our own desire to answer why we have "discovered" the paedophile in the last few years, despite the fact that ... they have always been part of our community" (p. 29). Kincaid (1992), and others, have also suggested that: "Drawing on the work of Michel Foucault, Kincaid argues that our society has constructed the image of the pedophile in order to reinforce our own sense of normalcy. Like Foucault, Kincaid argues that power relations within society create "otherness"" (website). There is little dispute, that substantial numbers of adults have a sexual attraction to minors, bearing in mind, a minor is anyone under the age 18 in the United Kingdom (and older in some of the United States of America). This does not make them a paedophile. Even if they act on their sexual urges, this does not make them a paedophile. Indeed, for two years within that age group, such a consensual act is legal. The label, 'Paedophile', is applied as one of two types, the colloquial or the medico-legal. The colloquial usage is easily defined as "someone who is sexually attracted to/fancies children/kids". Instantly, we see the first problem associated with the colloquial usage i.e. if minors are children/kids, then many, if not the majority of, adults are paedophiles. The medico-legal usage has changed (and continues to change) with time. Originally applied, in the psychiatric sense, by Bebbington (1979): "Paedophilia is the condition of being erotically attracted to pre-pubertal children ... Paedophilic acts rarely involve violence or coercion and usually take the form of immature sex play such as looking, showing, kissing and fondling. Coitus is uncommon ... The adult partner is usually known to the child and in one study the child was an active participant in two-thirds of the cases ... This age frequency distribution parallels that for early sexual exploration in female children given by Kinsey, which reinforces the idea of child participation" (p. 265). Bebbington seems to suggest that it is predominantly a physical activity and not a state of mind, per se. It now has its present psychiatric guise in the diagnostic manuals, such as the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-IV-TR and World Health Organisation's ICD-10, although there have been representations to remove all paraphilias from the psychiatric domain (Moser and Kleinplatz, 2003). By reference to these manuals (from their content in 2004), the following conclusions may be made, for the majority, if not all, Western countries: ·
Paedophilia is one of the many paraphilias which exist The meaning of the label 'Paedophile' is now clear. Not only should the child be pre-pubertal, in all of the pre-requisites above, only one may involve an illegal activity, that of the sexual abuse of children, which is (at the very least) culturally unacceptable. (2) The Hunt For Britain's 'Paedophiles' - 2006 When Taylor et al (2006) informed their readers that the Education Secretary, Ruth Kelly, had been responsible for "... personally allowing a self-confessed paedophile to work as a PE teacher", this came as a surprise to a number of people (not least, the teacher). It was clear that Ms Kelly should be applauded, as she had done nothing illegal, and the educational system was becoming pleasingly tolerant and enlightened. Of course, this was not what was being claimed at all. Once again, this label was drawn from the heavy artillery of the 'tabloid' press, to introduce the fact that a man had legally obtained a position within a school, following and proceeding through all the vetting systems which were required in his position. Apparently, the Norfolk Constabulary decided (due to the man's legal obligation to register as a 'Sex Offender' under the requirements of the Sexual Offenders Act (1997), amended by the Sexual Offenders Act (2003)), that he was far too much of a risk to work on their 'patch', and they made a "furious protest to the school". The teacher was suspended and then later resigned. The teacher had received a caution, for 'incitement to make indecent images'. The likelihood that this teacher was guilty of any real crime is now clearly questionable (Wright, 2004). This offered little succour, when the teacher, his wife and his children (now at a secret location) were provided with panic alarms, due to police fears of vigilante attacks (Lightfoot, 2006). For the following ten days, essentially every newspaper (intensely inspired by politicians, parent-teacher associations, child-protection agencies and other vested interests) was locked into a confused, ill-conceived and ill-informed tirade (with some notable exceptions) against a number of ex-offenders and the government; this year's, first paedophile witch-hunt was underway. The author is not always supportive of the present government, but will illustrate how the changes in statutes, over the past three decades, have created the sex offender noveau and the paedophile noveau, which did not exist before; the laws created the 'monsters'. This sorrowful outcome is little, or no, fault of Ruth Kelly, it is one of the consequences of labelling and bad law. (3) The Sex-Offender Machine Restricting the discussion to the possession, taking or making of indecent images of children, we note that (at least) the following statutes may be invoked, depending on, often subtle, aspects of the offence: "There are three immediately relevant Acts: ·
Protection of Children Act 1978 (PCA 1978) ...: Other statutes which may have been invoked, in terms of sentencing, monitoring, barring from employment and recall powers, are: ·
Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (CYPA 1933) From Indecent Acts (2005), the origin of the PCA 1978 is described: "The Protection of Children Bill was put before Parliament as a Private Member's Bill by Cyril Townsend in the 1977-1978 session of Parliament. This Bill came about as a result of the concern over child pornography and the sexual exploitation of children that arose in the United States of America in 1977 and the uptake of this cause in the UK by Mary Whitehouse and the press" (website). Halsbury's Statutes (2005) states that the function of the PCA 1978 was: "... to prevent the exploitation of children by making indecent photographs of them, and to penalise the distribution, showing and advertisement of such indecent photographs" (p. 743). Clearly, if one made such an indecent image, one may presume that a sexual act may be taking place. Was the cessation of such acts the raison d'être of Townsend's bill, leading to the act? Did he and his supporters believe that child sexual abuse would be impacted upon? Were there more effective ways to do this? The Parliamentary Debates, at the time, contain a plethora of moral, religious, true and false, reasoned and unreasonable claims about this topic. Paisley (1978) stated: "This is not a Bill dealing with pornography, about which, as hon. Members know, I have strong views. The Bill has to do with the protection of the child" (p. 1867). With, Townsend (1978), himself, stating: "I regard it is as a finger-in-the-dyke sort of Bill. I have resisted to put forward a measure that would deal with all aspects of the sexual exploitation of children ..." (p. 1837). It is now the case, that an indecent image may be completely non-sexual (i.e. in English and Welsh courts, indecency is in the eye of the beholder). For this reason, it is proposed that the PCA 1978 was not one of a sexual origin, per se, it was a token, censorious act, hoping to avoid the exploitation of children (albeit with an explicit 'sexual' dimension) and drew upon other concerns about pornography, prostitution, sexuality and liberalisation, in general, at that time. It was certainly not a Sexual Offender Bill. It is instructive to note that the subsequent Act was created within months of Bebbington's 'definition' of the paedophile and the activities of the, now defunct, Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). In the appeal, R v Bowden (1999), it was decided that 'downloading' such images, by computer, equated to 'making'. Thus a person 'making' such images, stored temporarily or permanently in an electronic form, could then be prosecuted under the PCA 1978. The next development, was the pivotal action for creating thousands of 'sex offenders' then, now and in the future. This has resulted in damaging the lives of many individuals (and destroying them, in the case of substantial numbers of men (Wright, 2004)), The Royal Assent, on the 21st March 1997, of the Sexual Offenders Act 1997 (amended by the Sexual Offenders Act 2003), created the sex offender noveau and, by default, in the eyes of the populace, the paedophile noveau. Someone, somehow, by some measure, now had to decide just who had to 'Register as a Sex Offender' (i.e. 'notify'). Some offences were clearly sexual (as defined by a number of other Acts), but the philosophical issue of the nature of the origin of the PCA 1978 was now academic. Any offence under the PCA 1978 (now amended by the SOA 2003) was included in 'The Schedules' of the SOA 1997 (it was already incorporated into the CJA 1991) and, ultimately, 'Schedule 3' of the SOA 2003. Combining this with the 'Bowden Decision', "to take, or permit to be taken or to make, any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child" (i.e. essentially, to look at an image) now became, in toto, a serious, arrestable, notifiable, sexual offence. The implementation of the SOA 2003 introduced even more ridiculous dimensions, such as, it is legal to have consensual sex with a seventeen year-old, but taking a photograph of the act could lead to a period in prison. Not to mention, that any parent who had sex with their partner, with a child in the same room (or a nearby room?), could be committing a sexual offence. This parallels such useful outcomes (e.g. of the CJCSA 2000), where it is possible to have sex with a sixteen-year old, but not teach them how to use a condom. Of course, sexual liaisons do occur between teachers and their in loco parentis wards, as recently described in the alleged case of a female teacher (Daily Express, 2006a) and a male teacher (Daily Mirror, 2006a) Coincidentally, such interests were also shared by former magistrates (News of The World, 2006a), doctors (Russell, 2006a), police officers (The Sun, 2006a), priests (Panton, 2006), 'knicker saleswomen' (Pyatt, 2006) and, of course, ex-offenders (Taylor, 2006a). The simple fact of the matter is, that the majority of non-familial (which are, by far, the minority of the total number) 'child sexual abuse' cases are consensual (even if the minor cannot be deemed to be able to provide informed consent, in law). Conclusion It may appear that this essay is more a discussion of media and public concerns, than that of 'official definitions of crime'. The point is, that the 'official definitions of crime', in the area of sexual and quasi-sexual offending, are almost always dictated by ill-informed public concerns, the vested interests of authorities, the media, lobby groups and the police. Objectivity, rational discussion, civil liberties and human rights are rare commodities in this area. If labelling is "... the process by which deviance is recognized" (Labor Law Talk, 2005) and laws are drafted in attempt to match the perception of what a crime is, at that time in a society's development, then the 'accumulation of disadvantage' not only contributes to the process of labelling, but the labelling is perpetuated, as the populace become less aware of the 'official definitions of crimes' i.e. laws (by choice, or by their frequency and complexity), and the negative implications are guaranteed. Thus, the cycle of damage for, and the infringement of the Human Rights of, the ex-offender is complete; society then reaps the consequences, including moral panics. It is said that "ignorance of the law is no defence", conversely, ignorance of the law is no justification for attack, either. However, it is true that Ruth Kelly did show her political naiveté (or perhaps not) in not making the processes (e.g. the List 99 Care Standards Tribunal etc.) clear in her first statement to The House. What must be avoided, in the forthcoming review, is another knee-jerk political reaction, creating other 'official definitions of crime', leading to laws, instruments and systems (post-Bichard, 2004) which are as prejudicial, populist and ill-informed as those which led to this recent moral panic, in the first place. Finally, what is the real impact of these decisions? There is no opportunity, here, to describe the massive impact on the life of 'Sex Offenders' and their families, so a warning is offered, by an extreme, and yet chillingly-real, example: "I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would never have believed possible. For, the moment I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews. The fate of a few filthy lousy Jews and epileptics is not worth bothering about" (Hitler, p. 76). The present often mirrors history: "RECENTLY, we have been hearing about the vile and horrific crimes of child molesters/rapists and child killers. When is society going to do something that will really deter this? ... Instead of animal testing do the testing on the monsters who carry out horrific crimes on children. My letter got support but someone wrote saying my ideas were barbaric. Are there other people in society who think my idea is barbaric?" (Saville, 2006). For, let us be honest - 'they' are all 'paedos'.
References All relevant newspaper references (up to 25/1/06) have been listed, for completeness. Aaronovitch, D. (2006), The Paedophile Panic: Why We Have Reached Half Way To Bonkers Island, The Times, 17th January 2006 (newspaper). Armstrong, J. (2006), Govt Sex Crime Expert On Child Porn Charges - Probation Chief Held After Police Swoop, Daily Mirror, 21st January 2006 (newspaper): Khan, S. and Tanner, M. (2006), Sex Offender Expert In Court For Child Porn, The Independent, 22nd January 2006 (newspaper). Austin, S. (2006), 88 Sexual Offenders In Schools - Greater Risk Of Assault From Other Pupils, Metro, 20th January 2006 (newspaper). Oldfield, N.L. (2006), "Examine The Adequacy Of The Powers Of Police Officers, In Fighting Crime And Terrorism, Regarding The Arrest, Detention And Questioning Of Suspects As Against The Rights Of Those Suspects", Doncaster College (assignment). Baker, M. (2006), Android With No Dress Sense, The Times Educational Supplement, 20th January 2006 (newspaper). Bale, J. (2006), Kelly Under Attack For Approving Sex Offender In PE Job, The Times, 9th January 2006 (newspaper). Barnes, C. (2006), We Must Be Ever Vigilant, Sunday Express, 15th January 2006 (newspaper). Bebbington, P. (1979), Sexual Disorders. In P. Hill, R. Murray and A. Thorley, Essentials Of Postgraduate Psychiatry, London, Academic Press (book). Bergen, K. (2006), The Whip, The Sun, 13th January 2006 (newspaper). Bichard (2004), An Independent Inquiry Arising From The Soham Murders <http:// www.bichardinquiry.org.uk; (website). Blackman, O. (2006), Tell Us The Truth, Ruth, Daily Mirror, 12th January 2006 (newspaper): Blackman, O. (2006), So How Many Perverts Are Teaching Our Kids, Ms Kelly?, Daily Mirror, 12th January 2006 (newspaper): Blackman, O. (2006), I Was Right To Okay Paedophile Teacher - Howells Defends Blunder On Pervert, Daily Mirror, 14th January 2006 (newspaper): Blackman, O. (2006), Sex Offenders In Schools Scandal - 3 Days To Save Her Job, Daily Mirror, 16th January 2006 (newspaper): Blackman, O. (2006), Moment of Ruth - PM To Decide Kelly Fate On Crucial Paedo Crisis Speech, Daily Mirror, 18th January 2006 (newspaper): Blackman, O. (2006), 60 Mins - Ruth Kelly Has Just An Hour To Rescue Her Career Over Perverts In Classroom, Daily Mirror, 19th January 2006 (newspaper): Blackman, O. and Gallagher, P. (2006), Kick 'Em Out!, Daily Mirror, 20th January 2006 (newspaper): Blackman, O. (2006), Minister Saves Her Skin With Pledge On Pervert Crackdown - Kelly's Weirdos, Daily Mirror, 20th January 2006 (newspaper). Blair, A. and Halpin, T. (2006), Loophole Means After-Hours Club Pupils Still At Risk, The Times, 20th January 2006 (newspaper). Blunkett, D. (2006), Ruth Must Not Take All The Blame, The Sun, 19th January 2006 (newspaper). Branigan, T. Smithers, R. and Honigsbaum, M. (2006), Clamour For Kelly To Quit Intensifies - Kelly Stands Firm Despite Fresh Claims, The Guardian, 16th January 2006 (newspaper). Brogan, B. (2006), Nine Sex Offenders Beat The System - Roll Call That May Cost Kelly Her Job, Daily Mail, 16th January 2006 (newspaper): Brogan, B. and Chapman, J. (2006), Cabinet Goes To War Over Kelly's School Reforms, Daily Mail, 18th January 2006 (newspaper). Brooke, H. (2006), The Sex Offender Register Should Be Made Public, The Independent, 16th January 2006 (newspaper). Brown, C. (2006), Kelly Accused Of Misleading MPs In Sex Offender Row, The Independent, 17th January 2006 (newspaper): Brown, C. (2006), How Confusion Reigns In The Vetting System, The Independent, 17th January 2006 (newspaper): Brown, C. (2006), Labour Rebels Say 100 Mps Will Join Fight Against School Reforms, The Independent, 21st January 2006 (newspaper). Born, M. and Kelly, T. (2006), The BBC Allows Sex Offender To Justify Himself, Daily Mail, 18th January 2006 (newspaper). Bowcott. O, (2006), Second 'Unfit' Teacher Adds To Kelly Woes, The Guardian, 14th January 2006 (newspaper). Box, G. (2006), 'Scandal' Of List 99, Daily Mirror, 14th January 2006 (newspaper). Brogan, B. (2006), Net Widens In Records Trawl Back To 1970s, Daily Mail, 14th January 2006 (newspaper). Brown, C. and Garner, R. (2006), Kelly Passes Commons Test But Faces Further Questions Over Reforms, The Independent, 20th January 2006 (newspaper). Campbell, A. (2006), Cool Kelly Saw Off Critics And Crisis .. For Now, News of The World, 22nd January 2006 (newspaper). Carlin, B. (2006), Kelly's Bid To Win Round Labour Rebels Backfires, The Daily Telegraph, 21st January 2006 (newspaper). Carr, S. (2006), Ruth Insists 'Blame Me' Which Is Political-Speak For 'Don't Blame Me', The Independent, 13th January 2006 (newspaper): Carr, S. (2006), Ruth Kelly Had A Pre-Human, Ape-Like Grin - It Was Fear, I Suppose, The Independent, 19th January 2006 (newspaper): Carr, S. (2006), She Was Indignant, As If Accused Of Doing Something Wrong, The Independent, 20th January 2006 (newspaper). Carroll, S. (2006), Shield Our Kids, Daily Mirror, 11th January 2006 (newspaper). Cartwright, R. (2006), Child Protection Is Everyone's Job - Not Just Ruth Kelly's, The Guardian, 19th January 2006 (newspaper). Cassidy, S. (2006), Sex Offender Given Job As A Teacher Was Not An Isolated Case, The Independent, 12th January 2006 (newspaper): Cassidy, S. (2006), Beleaguered Kelly Fails To Silence Critics As Sex Offender Row Grows, The Independent, 13th January 2006 (newspaper): Cassidy, S. (2006), Headteacher Criticises Kelly As Second Offender Is Named, The Independent, 14th January 2006 (newspaper): Cassidy, S. and McSmith, A. (2006), Cameron: Kelly Not Fit To Head Sex Offenders Enquiry, The Independent, 16th January 2006 (newspaper). Cecil, N. (2006), I Granted All-Clear - Howells' Nod For Porno Sir, The Sun, 13th January 2006 (newspaper). Chakrabarti, S. (2006), Abusers Have No Right To Teach Our Children, Daily Mirror, 20th January 2006 (newspaper). Chapman, J. (2006), Kelly Tries To Duck Pervert Teacher Row, Daily Mail, 11th January 2006 (newspaper): Chapman, J. and Harris, S. (2006), Just How Many Sex Offenders Work In Our Schools?, Daily Mail, 12th January 2006 (newspaper): Chapman, J. (2006), Kelly Told Paedophile Teacher: I Trust You, Daily Mail, 13th January 2006 (newspaper): Chapman, J. (2006), The Testimonial For A Paedophile, Daily Mail, 13th January 2006 (newspaper): Chapman, J. and Slack, J. (2006), Kelly Is Accused Of Dirty tricks In Paedophile Row, Daily Mail, 17th January 2006 (newspaper): Chapman, J. and Kelly, T. (2006), Carry On Teaching, Daily Mail, 19th January 2006 (newspaper): Chapman, J. (2006), The 88 School Sex Offenders - Has Kelly Really Cleared The Air?, Daily Mail, 20th January 2006 (newspaper): Chapman, J. (2006), You Just Don’t Get It, Kelly Tells MPs, Daily Mail, 21st January 2006 (newspaper). Cobain, I. and Taylor, M. (2006), I Am Not a Paedophile, Insists Teacher At Centre Of Sex Offender Controversy, The Guardian, 17th January 2006 (newspaper): Cobain, I. (2006), Fifty-Six Sex Offenders Have Been Allowed To Work In Schools In Past Nine Years, The Guardian, 20th January 2006 (newspaper). Curtis, P. and White, M. (2006), Kelly Admits More Sex Offenders In School Jobs, The Guardian, 12th January 2006 (newspaper). Daily Express (2006a), Teacher's 'Sex With Boy Of 14', 12th January 2006 (newspaper). Daily Express (2006b), Kelly Let A Sex Pest Teach in School, 9th January 2006 (newspaper): Kelly's Job On The Line, 11th January 2006 (newspaper): Opinion - Kelly Is Out Of Her Depth, 11th January 2006 (newspaper): Letters - Should Ruth Kelly Quit Over Perverts Row?, 11th January 2006 (newspaper): Vetting Must Be Rigorous, 12th January 2006 (newspaper): Kelly's Bizarre Decisions Don't Square With Her Faith, 16th January 2006 (newspaper): Small Print Undermines Kelly's New School Laws, 20th January 2006 (newspaper). Daily Mail (2006), Comment - A Dangerous Failing, 9th January 2006 (newspaper): Comment - How Many Of Our Children Are At Risk?, 12th January 2006 (newspaper): Comment - Tawdry Politics Puts Children At Risk, 13th January 2006 (newspaper): Comment - Out Of Her Depth, 16th January 2006 (newspaper): Letters - How Abusers Use Cunning To Get Close To Their Prey, 18th January 2006 (newspaper): Letters - Innocent Victims, 19th January 2006 (newspaper): Letters - Children Are The Losers In 'Paedophile Paranoia', 20th January 2006 (newspaper): Comment - Why Kelly Doesn't Deserve Our Trust, 20th January 2006 (newspaper). Daily Mirror (2006a), Grope Sir Gets 2yrs, 18th January 2006 (newspaper). Daily Mirror (2006b), Voice Of The Daily Mirror - Kelly Must Do Better, 12th January 2006 (newspaper): Voice Of The Daily Mirror - A Ministry Of Blunders, 14th January 2006 (newspaper): Dear Mirror - Kelly Must Go, 16th January 2006 (newspaper): Voice Of The Daily Mirror - Kinnock Is In The Right, 21st January 2006 (newspaper): Dear Mirror - Kelly Must Go, 23rd January 2006 (newspaper). The Daily Telegraph (2006), Kelly Needs To Be On Top Of The Details Of Her Job, 13th January 2006 (newspaper): Comments - Checking List 99, 13th January 2006 (newspaper): Letters To The Editor - The Government's Attitude To Sex Offenders And Schools, 14th January 2006 (newspaper). D'Ancona, M. (2006), Kelly's Shame? Yes, And Everyone Else's, Sunday Telegraph, 15th January 2006 (newspaper): D'Ancona, M. (2006), If Kelly Let The Schools Free, Sex Offenders Won't Get Jobs, The Daily Telegraph, 18th January 2006 (newspaper). Deedes, W.F. (2006), We Need A New Robert Peel To Protect Us, The Daily Telegraph, 20th January 2006 (newspaper). Doward, J., Asthana, A. and Hinsliff, G. (2006), Kelly Told Of Schools Sex Crisis Last Year, The Observer, 15th January 2006 (newspaper): Doward, J. (2006), Sex Scandal That Engulfed Kelly, The Observer, 15th January 2006 (newspaper). Elliott, F. and Goodchild, S. (2006), How Many More?, The Independent on Sunday, 15th January 2006 (newspaper): Elliott, F. (2006), Pressure Builds On Kelly Over Child Molester's School Job, The Independent on Sunday, 15th January 2006 (newspaper). Feltz, V. (2006), Our Fear Is Keeping Our Children Imprisoned, Daily Express, 17th January 2006 (newspaper). Garner, R. (2006), Teacher Caught Up In Controversy Insists He Is Not A Paedophile, The Independent, 17th January 2006 (newspaper): Garner, R. and Brown, C. (2006), Deputy Head Allowed | |||
Truth