Letter: Justice in jeopardy
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The Government has announced in the Queen's Speech its intention to pilot a scheme whereby offenders who fail to comply with a community service order will have all or part of their benefit payments taken away.
A community service order is an order of the court. If that order is not obeyed, the proper course of action is to return the offender to court where s/he will be given an opportunity to answer the charge of breach and to explain the reasons for non-compliance. The court will then decide whether any action is necessary, and what that action should be.
An offender may be warned of the consequences of further failure to get to grips with the order, fined, sentenced to additional hours of work, or - where it is clear that there is a wilful refusal to comply - the order may be revoked and the individual resentenced, almost certainly to custody.
To encourage the probation service to conspire with social services to deprive offenders of the financial means of survival may be expedient, but it is not justice.
If this measure is deemed to succeed, shall we also see benefit withdrawn from those who drive whilst disqualified? Those who breach a curfew? Those who fail to surrender to their bail? Fine defaulters? Logically, there is absolutely no reason why further savings in court costs shouldn't be made in this way.
It is a fundamental principle that the criminal justice system carries out its duties impartially and independently of the executive. To allow the dispensation of "justice" to leak out of the court system to places in which it does not belong is a step which should be strenu-ously opposed.
IAN HURDLEY JP
Lancashire
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments