The boss of one of Britain’s biggest companies recently said that people distinguish themselves as leaders by making things happen.
Let’s hope that our new government in Westminster shares this philosophy.
For example, it would be great if Nick Clegg MP and Ken Clarke MP swiftly make things happen to back up the former’s claim that he’ll “bring in a new approach to penal reform” which will end Labour’s “build and fill ‘em approach to prisons”.
Watch this space for further details.
Tags: Prison system
Dear Mr Atkinson,
Thank you for all your interesting posts about the meaning of Justice, which provide a lot of food for thought. I especially liked your post entiltled “Shantaram” about justice in the Mumbai slums.
I was wondering what are your current thoughts about what the London riots mean in terms of social justice? There is a lot being published about the hypocrisy of our leaders who engage in expense and sexual scandals, illegal wars and covering up of truth (Iraq) being somehow linked to the cause of the riots.
We also have the situation of Libya, and the Arab Spring in general, discussed as in some sense related to the riots, where Gadaffi was in favour with Britain for many years despite the nature of his Regime, and then support was switched to the rebels as a more “just” cause. And why only intervention in Libya? Surely it would be more “just” to help all those states equally?
Please could you help me understand why Society should expect a certain type of behaviour from its citizens when the leaders themselves and the political machinations are of a contrary nature. Do you think the politicians are the cause of the riots as they set the example through national behaviour (with their sense of entitlement and disregard of Law) which then filters down, resulting in the riots that we saw?
And why should government and politicians be allowed to go on the whole unpunished whilst relatively innocent individuals are incarcerated and bear the full brunt of the Law? I would like to see a Society which is first at peace with itself and its true inner motives before any discussion of Justice can be pursued.
Jack, many thanks for your kind comments about the Just and Reasonable™ blog and for your thought-provoking questions about the London riots in August 2011.
On your question about what the London riots mean in terms of social justice, the answers are probably wide-ranging. One perspective is that the riots are a symptom of the wide gap between the haves and the have-nots in England. However, could this be the sole explanation given there were reports of some looters from wealthier backgrounds?
Looking at the details of the people who faced the courts, the vast majority appear to be young men. There have been reports over recent years of a malaise among young men who face rather bleak employment prospects with increasing competition for jobs – not least from often better qualified young women. These difficulties do not seem to justify rioting but they seem worth noting.
You raised the question whether the London riots were related to the situation in Libya or the Arab Spring. One parallel which could be drawn between the situations is this feeling of limited prospects for many younger people in all these regions where unemployment is elevated.
Younger people may need to think more about making work for themselves rather than seeking employment by someone else. By making themselves more useful to society, including via social enterprises, they ought to be able to improve their prospects.
For example, there is much work to be done to alleviate some of society’s problems connected with the criminal justice system. Developing viable alternatives to prison, such as effective community sentences, could provide fertile soil for the seeds of social enterprises.
Returning to the situation in Libya, it seems hard to argue that it would not be more “just” for the United Kingdom to assist rebellions against all non-benevolent regimes. It would be interesting to know how the authorities decided to intervene in Libya rather than other countries. Could a cost benefit analysis approach be appropriate for such decisions?
Although politicians’ infractions often seem to be characterised as misjudgements and somehow swept under the carpet, there have been examples recently where politicians have been imprisoned, for example for fraudulent expense claims.
Democratically elected politicians tend to reflect the mores of the society which elects them. So while unhypocritical and scrupulous leaders would be preferable, can this be a realistic expectation based on the state of society today?