Abolish Slogans
Reforming the police and wider criminal justice system is complicated, nuanced and vital. So how should Labour approach it?
This week the Metropolitan Police were found in a report to be using racist, sexist, violent and ableist language. Another week, another example of why the Met are completely and irredeemably broken as an organisation.
Of course, they aren’t the only police force in the UK to hit the headlines for reasons beyond “Someone committed a crime and was caught”, “Someone wanted to commit a crime and was foiled” “someone committed a crime and we need help to catch them” or “why haven’t the police caught this crimonal” which are the traditional pillars of how we report, talk and think about crime.
In academic and policy circles, we also discuss crime prevention, both on a small practical level (the impact of CCTV, neighbourhood policing etc) and on a deeper societal level (the impact of wealth, educational, housing inequalities etc).
What we have also done over the past several years is formally expand both what we regard as a crime and what we regard as the job of the police and the courts. However this has largely been done piecemeal and rarely looked at either in the round, or in terms of its impact on crime reporting, accounting and management.
I have been thinking about this for two reasons recently. Firstly in the context of security being one of Keir Starmer’s key planks and what this means in terms of crime policy.
But secondly, I have been thinking about it given my - surprising to myself - reaction to the campaign to make Misogyny a hate crime. I’m against it. Which seems and almost feels counter-intuitive. Plenty of feminists with whom I agree on much else are in favour of this and I can see why. But for me there are a number of reasons why I am not, and I thought it would be useful to think about why, in the larger context of what I think the law can and should be for. (Of course, when I say the law, I’m not talking about conveyancing or divorce or all those other aspects of civil law. I mean what should and should not be legal/illegal and how should that be enforced.)
Our current laws are not well enforced. This is particularly true of crimes that are fuelled in part by misogyny. Rape in particular has been all but decriminalised. The prosecution rate is incredibly low and the conviction rate is such a small percentage of this that it barely registers as a number.
The police need reform from top to bottom and in part this is because there is a culture of misogyny that exists throughout the force that makes it less likely that rape will be given the kind of focus it needs, investigated with the levels of understanding required and pursued despite being seen as a hard crime.
It is also true that in our target-driven culture, making it less attractive to report a crime might be a great way for a force to massage the figures. So what is the incentive for a force to take the long, hard stumbling and painful steps that a slow journey towards turning this around that would be needed?
Furthermore, why would we expect a group of people who have repeatedly and regularly been found to not only tolerate but celebrate as banter talk that uses the word “rape” interchangeably with “have sex with” and doesn’t see the problem or, indeed, difference to be the right ones to lead this work?
But, hey - why not give them another crime to deal with that might give them a shiny badge to wear when trying to burnish their credentials to distract from their utter failures? Far easier to notch up a few nice looking stats on responding to hate crime by knocking on a few doors than the harder work of dealing with the much more difficult crimes.
If Socialism is the language of priorities, then this is a no-brainer for me. Stop adding laws that are impossible to actually enforce (you can’t stop someone being misogynist, you can just try to stop them doing so out loud) and start thinking and spending and worrying and planning and researching and implementing and listening and thinking some more and then bloody doing things that will enforce the more serious laws we have that should be protecting people but aren’t.
Secondly, stop thinking that changes laws changes minds. It is the societal acceptance - often that that comes before new laws - that does that. The more we try to shortcut changing the way men in particular, but also women (misogyny and patriarchy are structures that we all take part in to some extent of another - wittingly or unwittingly) behave the less we put in the much harder work. We know that putting people in prison doesn’t change people’s thinking and one of the reasons we know this is because we rightly celebrate those who were murdered, imprisoned and tortured for their truths. From Gallileo to Mandela and Pussy Riot.
When we think an idea is right, being punished for it doesn’t change our mind - being persuaded otherwise does. But we are not in a persuading moment. We are in a punishing moment where sanctions - political, social, legal and financial - are brought to bear on the unbelievers and our faith circles get ever smaller.
Given this, we should not be opening the door to the police having the power to intervene in such disagreements. Becuase who knows what the next orthodoxy will be and how it will be enforced.
There is a huge amount of work to deliver a police force that works to help the vast majority of Britons feel more secure in their homes and on the streets. It doesn’t come with shortcuts and it shouldn’t be quite so open to unintended consequences.
I run a political and communications consultancy called Political Human. Please get in touch if you are looking for political or media consultancy advice, strategic communication and campaign planning, ghostwriting, copywriting, editing, training or coaching.
You can read some lovely things that some of my clients have said here.
I am also a playwright and director. My debut piece No Cure For Love can be seen here.
Work on my next piece Triggered is continuing apace with a view to staging it next summer. I have set up a Go Fund Me with details and would be delighted to receive donations to help pay my actors (I don’t believe in asking for free labour).
What I’ve been up to
I saw Ava: The Secret conversations in which I didn’t really learn a great deal about Ava Gardner.
I also saw Wuthering Heights which I enjoyed more. It’s a bit long (especially the first half, which seems to be the current fashion) but it is raucous and kenetic and gives you plenty to watch.
And then I saw TIFO which I found really thought provoking.
Finally, I am guest editing the blog of lovely PR Company Mobius. My introduction to my series looks at how theatre covers politics and the role of the critic in assessing that.
Questions, comments and arguments are very welcome. Insults will get you summarily blocked on every platform that no longer hosts Donald Trump. I’m at emmaburnell@gmail.com or on Twitter (far too often) at @EmmaBurnell_.