Lynch mobs at dawn

The naming and shaming of convicted criminals online has been endorsed by Home Office Minister, Nick Herbert. This appears to be yet another government [knee-jerk] plan to appease the masses be seen to be tough on crime, which hasn't really been thought through, in the government's sustained attack on our justice system.


The idea, it seems, is to publish photographs of offenders on 'crime maps' covering England and Wales; the result of which will be to reduce crime. This of course is unlikely to cause a reduction in crime at all; it is likely to do one of two things: create an increase in unsafe convictions whilst pacifying Joe Bloggs and his media bloodhound; or cause a drop in the conviction rate.


Why do I think this? Well stop for a moment and think about what will happen when a person is prosecuted primarily due to them having been identified in a police line up. Its my guess that the CPS will charge blindly toward the easy conviction finish line and the defence will, at a timely moment, gallop up to the front of the race and ask the question "has the victim ever looked at the crime map?" Cue sweaty palmed prosecutor watching his easy conviction slipping through his fingers. 


The naming and shaming of criminals in this way will simply serve the reckless wants of Mr Joe Bloggs, vigilante-style, victim. He will, quite naturally, take an interest in the criminals in his area, look at their images on the map and whether he realises it or not, will commit their faces to memory. When Joe is later required to identify the individual he spotted running away from his house at the time it was trashed by a thieving little toe-rag, he spots the young man from the map - it might be him, same hair, same sort of height, yep, must be that one. Result! When this is raised in the toe-rag's defence it is enough to cast reasonable doubt so he gets to walk out of court rather than taking a ride to HM Holiday Camp.


What about jurors who, before or even during a trial, decide to take a look at the crime map? There is clearly the potential for them to convict on the basis that the accused had previously been handed a custodial sentence for a different crime, rather than ensuring a conviction on the facts of the case before them.


Yet again we find ourselves looking at the proposals of a bunch of halfwits who have failed to consider the negative connotations of their hair-brained schemes.


Note to government: Its not big and its not clever to undermine our justice system in any of the ways you have thus far attempted!


*The author knows little about criminal law but does have a bit of commonsense.