Reader TTS

Sometimes no news really is the only way to have good news. Death and depravity dominate the headlines: in America, mass shootings and race hatred; at home the hurling of a child from a

balcony at Tate Modern. It is easy to succumb to the illusion that the world is going to the dogs. Such random acts of wickedness are intended to terrify us, but even more sinister are the

systematic atrocities perpetrated by states. Right now there are regimes that resemble the figments of the most lurid poetic imaginations — such as Milton’s evocation of Hell’s capital:

“Pandemonium, the palace of Satan rises, suddenly built of the deep: the infernal peers sit there in council.” That’s what it must be like these days in Beijing, behind the closed doors of

the Communist Party’s inner sanctum, where Xi Jinping and his Politburo ponder how to snuff out the guttering flame of freedom in Hong Kong. And China is only the biggest and most powerful

of such diabolical despotisms: there are many more. The problem of evil, then, is still with us. How, though, do we confront it in our daily lives? Something in our nature refuses to be

reconciled to man’s inhumanity to man. We may feel impotent in its presence, but we refuse to ignore it. Justice must be done, even if we cannot always do justice to the enormity of the

crime. It is not enough to sympathise with the victims; we also demand that the perpetrators be punished. And if, as a society, we will that end, we must also will the means. Yet as soon as

a politician suggests doing precisely that, there is an outcry. Priti Patel, the new Home Secretary, was quoted as saying that she doesn’t merely want 20,000 more police, but intends to use

them to deter crime: “Quite frankly, with more police officers out there and greater police presence, I want [criminals] to literally feel terror at the thought of committing offences.” Such

a view of the criminal justice system is now seen as “illiberal”. The police are supposed to take a “public health” approach to crime, which means understanding criminals rather than

intimidating them. Ms Patel was immediately condemned for failing to grasp the predicament of young drugs gang members, who only carry knives out of fear of their rivals. Such unfortunates

should see the police as their friends and allies, we are told, not as the implacable guardians of the law. Prison staff are now instructed to call inmates by their first names, and never

refer to them as “offenders”. Well, the taxpayer already funds an army of social workers and the rest of the welfare system; those who fall foul of it can turn to numerous charities. But the

police and the prisons are not designed for that purpose. They exist to deal with the problem of evil. Victims of crime are infuriated to be told by police that they will be offered

support, but no prospect of the crime being solved. The slaughter on our streets won’t be stopped until young men fear the certainty of arrest and conviction for carrying knives more than

they fear the consequences of not carrying them. The Home Secretary’s instinct is correct: criminals must be taught that they no longer rule the public spaces of our cities. The law should

inspire awe, not contempt. There is nothing liberal about letting offenders off lightly. Yes, many have mental issues or learning difficulties; violent backgrounds and broken families are a

big factor. But even the most feeble-minded or drug-crazed criminal can calculate risk and reward. Low conviction rates and lenient sentences incentivise crime — and vice versa. Courts can

and do exercise mercy, but they should never ignore the devastating consequences for those on the receiving end of crime. And there is no excuse for monstrosities such as the Metropolitan

Police operation that ruined the lives of blameless individuals accused of child abuse and murder by the fantasist Carl Beech (aka “Nick”). The public is willing to pay the price of

policing, but it demands value for money and a robust attitude to crime. People judge Home Secretaries not on promises or pieties, but on results. Priti Patel will receive a lot of flak for

her tough approach. She can take it.