I noticed today that there are some concerns over the “harsh” sentencing handed to people involved in the riots. Whether the sentences are too severe, I don’t know, and do not care to comment on.
I would however like to remind people of one of the principles of justice, without which we risk a slippery slope to tyranny.
The principle is that people are responsible for their own actions. Now most people would agree with that, especially those who are in favour of severe punishment being meted out to those involved in the riots.
However, I would like to point out that this central tenet of justice means that you can hold people to account only for the things that they are personally responsible for.
For instance, dealing out a tougher sentence to someone who committed theft during the course of a riot merely because a riot occurred cannot be morally just. If the person involved was culpable of more then by all means they should be tried and sentenced appropriate to the crime they committed.
I’m not sure it’s morally defensible to base sentences on the actions of other people.
Let’s look at a slightly more inflammatory example.
Should a motorist who commits a speeding offence be given a harsher sentence simply because other motorists are also speeding. I think the answer is intuitively no. Applying this to the rioting, the same set of rules should apply, unless it can be shown that there is some difference between the two.
Moral outrage is not a justifiable difference, for we know where that leads. I think the onus on anyone who supports harsher sentences for rioters is to describe what the difference is, and why it should make a difference.
So far I don’t feel that anyone has managed to do this.
