I wrote yesterday at Guardian Law about the Law Commission’s new consultation paper on Criminal Liability in Regulatory Contexts, which has been reported as proposing the repeal of minor criminal offences:
The alternative approach proposed by the Law Commission is no soft option – and no civil libertarian’s utopia, either. Relying on the existence of criminal sanctions alone as we often do now can be a lazy and relatively non-intrusive way of enforcing standards of behaviour: we do what’s expected of us largely for fear of “illusory or empty threats of criminal prosecution”, as the consultation paper puts it …
Using civil sanctions instead presupposes the existence of regulatory quangos, and requires active inspection by officials empowered to issue us with “stop notices”, “discretionary requirements” and fixed penalties
You can read the whole thing here. I welcome the proposals: I think more, and especially smarter, less heavy-handed state intervention to improve the civility of life generally would be a good thing. I’m not the sort of person who complains about a nanny state (not often, anyway). I’m more inclined to complain about the lazy absentee state who’s not there when you need it, or which treats you as a felon for doing something pretty minor (like, say, not renewing your tax disc).
The BBC Link has this in they analysis:
“Perhaps more importantly, it would mean that millions of people and businesses would not face the threat of criminalisation. The criminal justice system needs the goodwill of those people as witnesses and jurors in order to function effectively. It criminalises them at its peril. ”
I could not agree more.
The BBC Link has this in they analysis:
“Perhaps more importantly, it would mean that millions of people and businesses would not face the threat of criminalisation. The criminal justice system needs the goodwill of those people as witnesses and jurors in order to function effectively. It criminalises them at its peril. ”
I could not agree more.