Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Criminal disregard for law-and-order reality by Piers Akerman


Disregard Law and Order
Originally uploaded by Sydney Weasel.
July 06, 2006

NSW Director of Public Prosecutions Nicholas Cowdery has pulled the wrong rein – again.
Speaking at a teachers' conference on Sunday, Cowdery made a series of ridiculous claims about policing and crime reduction.

He stated that among the measures that do not reduce crime were heavier penalties, mandatory sentencing, zero-tolerance policing, greater police numbers, Neighbourhood Watch programs, intensive supervision of parolees and the targeting of drug users.

His preferred solutions, indeed in his view the "only" programs that prevent crime, were social and educational.

"To the extent that the criminal justice process deters anyone from offending, well and good, but even that is coming too late," he said, according to a copy of his address posted on the NSW Teachers' Federation's website.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

"Only social and educational programs can really deter in advance by preventing crime.

"By and large, people who are well educated, in good health, comfortably housed, in employment or otherwise usefully occupied and in stable and positive personal relationships do not commit crime (unless they become excessively greedy, over-sexed or unusually intoxicated)."

For whatever reason, Cowdery, who enjoys a life appointment to his position, did not post his remarks or a media release on the DPP website and there is no transcript of other remarks he made about self-confessed al-Qaeda trainee David Hicks at the same conference.

Nonetheless, Cowdery is wrong, dead wrong, about crime prevention though his touchy-feely remarks probably touched a warm, wet spot with members of the politically aggressive teachers' trade union.

By coincidence, a number of police chiefs responsible for slashing crime in the US were last week in crime-ridden Britain assessing the problems there and explaining how they had managed to curb crime in notoriously violent cities such as New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Miami.

Cowdery, who has a penchant for attending overseas conferences, should take note if he is planning more foreign jaunts.

According to a report of the police chiefs' visit published in The Spectator, there were 2262 murders in New York in 1990 but just 540 last year, a slump of 76 per cent. Rape was down 48 per cent, assault 61 per cent, robbery 76 per cent, burglary 80 per cent and car crime down 88 per cent.

At this rate the popular television series Law & Order may have to find another venue.

Bill Bratton, the former NYPD boss who Mayor Rudy Guiliani appointed to clean up the city, said the crime problem was solved by politicians who had the political will, smart policing by intelligence-led police and access to resources: "Fighting crime is not the most difficult thing in the world."

He said large numbers of police were necessary, contrary to Cowdery's claim, real-time intelligence was necessary to identify the core of offenders responsible, that police forces must be accountable, and local commanders be given maximum discretion.

He made the point that economic and social forces, which Cowdery and his social engineers believe are the "only" solutions, usually matter less than the quality of the criminal justice system.

Criminologist Paul Wilson, of Bond University, is also at odds with Cowdery's politically correct assessment of the crime problem.

He said there was no evidence anywhere in the world to support Cowdery's claim social and education programs were the only way in which criminals could be deterred.

How can this be? Surely Cowdery has been just about everywhere in the world on his extensive global travels and must have found some evidence, somewhere, to support his sweeping claims?

How can he justify his remarks, and the claim that police numbers don't matter, when experienced field officers with an enviable track record have demonstrated that the opposite is true?

As a former New York resident, I welcome the zero-tolerance approach to crime which has made even such legendary hotspots as Times Square family-safe and wish the NSW Labor Government had the guts to adopt a similar approach.

NSW Opposition Leader Peter Debnam has made a point of studying the successes in the war against crime and has pledged to adopt similar tactics if the Coalition wins office next year.

Both the NSW and national police unions support the zero-tolerance approach and have called for greater police numbers.

Debnam sees "celebrity public servants" such as Cowdery as "road blocks" on the path to progress and would ensure he would be the last DPP to enjoy a life-time appointment.

"I've been studying the solutions applied in the US for the past 12 years," Debnam said yesterday.

"In 1996, I introduced a Bill that made it possible for the police to impound vehicles from car hoons, (then premier Bob) Carr was forced to accept the measure."

He would also ensure that future DPPs be appointed for a maximum seven-year term on Cowdery's retirement or resignation and be made accountable to parliamentary oversight committees – just as ICAC and the Police Integrity Commission are.

If the Iemma "Dilemma" Government had any moral courage it would already have made these overdue changes to reduce crime – and moved to put the agenda-driven Cowdery out to pasture.