I don't think we try to deport convicted rapists unless they are also immigrants, in which case they are also abusing our hospitality.
And I don't think that fear is a main deterrent in the examples given. What are the real chances of being stopped plus being charged plus being convicted plus being found guilty plus being sentenced in a meaningful way? I think most people do these things because, deep down, they know it makes sense, because it is a trivial thing to comply with and because society has now accepted it into the culture. Compare these offence with other offences like exceeding the speed limit and illegal parking, both of which are rife...the fear element is the same in both situations.
The "toffs" argument is interesting, but ignores that a 'toff' is arguably more likely to get away with it (but not always)...or to spend large amounts of money smoothing the way to approval in the first place.
If it were a level playing field, I would probably agree with the sentiments.. However, commercial development plans are often railroaded through against local wishes,agreed plans are willfully altered by significant amounts and planning permission sought retrospectively (and almost always granted), commercial developers can spend vast sums employing experts to promote their project, sums which local protesters cannot raise for their own cause....and Cameron wants to relax the rules that make development easier.
I do have very mixed feelings about this.
This debate seems to come down to one thing, maybe two. The first is the question of whether it is ever right to challenge laws that are perceived to be bad. My answer is an emphatic yes, with absolutely no doubt in my mind, and having been and continue to be the victim of bad legislation. The second is, do the rich have more ability to do this than the poor? Another resounding yes from me...it is what Occupy Wall Street is all about.
We may have to agree to disagree on this one.
Polly
I'm sorry but when I mentioned deporting convicted rapists and terrorists I was of course meaning immigrants, which I assumed was implicit in the statement. It does stand to reason that we can't deport British citizens, as no country is obliged to take them. And of course can you see any country agreeing to take our criminals?
I would still argue that deterrents are very important. I attend dinners and the drive home is two miles on quiet country roads. I never have more than one glass of wine because the consequences of being convicted don't bear thinking about. The chances of me being stopped are incredibly slight but there could be an accident, which isn't my fault, and the next thing I'm being breathalysed.
I would also debate the speeding analogy. Yes, many of us speed, but we speed moderately where the punishment is slight, three points and £60, so the fear element is minuscule. My car is very powerful and is actually limited to 155 mph. Coming home from Glasgow to Lancashire late last Saturday evening, on empty motorways, I pushed the envelope a little and drove at 80-85 mph. At that speed, and especially as I slow down the minute I see a car coming up behind me, I would never be stopped by the police at that time of night. I constantly get the urge to really open it up and try some autobahn-type speeds, but I never do. Why is this? It's because the deterrents for driving at over 100 mph, even on an empty motorway at 2.00 a.m. are again, to horrible to contemplate. Bans stay on your licence for ten years I think and your
insurance costs go through the roof for the same period.
There is no doubt that deterrents work. Whatever your views on capital punishment the murder rate is several times more than it was fifty years ago, when criminals refused to carry guns because they knew the consequences.
Before I'm jumped on, whilst I can feel no moral qualms about speeding a little on empty motorways, I never speed in built-up areas or where there are pedestrians and other drivers in close proximity. And of course I firmly belive that if you break the law, you pay the price and, if I was prosecuted for doing 80-85 mph on a motorway in the early hours, I would accept my punishment without any acrimony.
As for the rich being able to get better treatment in the courts, the Dale Farm travellers don't seem to have been short of the finest legal representation!
