Crime, punishment and morals: we’re entering a maze with no clear exit

Theft is theft, justice is impartial, and punishment is not subject to moral equivalence. These, it seems to me, are important fundaments of a criminal system that underpins a fair, just and stable society. David Lammy, Labour MP, a barrister by training, and a possible future Mayor of London, has a rather different idea. When it comes to shoplifting, he’d like the court process to be more like an episode of Radio 4’s programme The Moral Maze.

In a policy document in which he attempts to draw attention to the impact theft is having on small businesses, he says that the effect of shoplifting on the victim should be taken into account when punishment is meted out. “The impact of a £150 theft,” the report says, “...would be far greater on an independent corner shop than on Fortnum & Mason, yet this is not reflected under the current Act.”

Before we consider the interesting moral question that Mr Lammy (inset) raises, it is worth pointing out that Fortnum & Mason, an independent corner shop of sorts itself, is perhaps not the best example to choose. For a start, someone shoplifting from Fortnum’s would also be stealing from one of the many small independent businesses who supply the store. Also, 80 per cent of the dividends from the profits made by Fortnum’s are distributed to charity, so in this case, it is not a victimless crime.

But Mr Lammy was making a wider point, and there’s no gainsaying that if someone half-inched £200 of groceries from Tesco, it would cause a smaller financial ripple than if the act took place in your local convenience store. And he is right to shine a light on the impact that shoplifting is having on Britain’s retail outlets. Crime costs these businesses more than £600m a year: shoplifting accounts for 81 per cent of this. “At the same time,” said Mr Lammy on Newsnight, “the threshold of taking the crime seriously is getting higher.” His point is not to diminish the importance of shoplifting from posh stores, but to agitate for greater punishment for those who steal from hard-pressed shopkeepers.

Fair enough. But the trouble with this approach is that crime needs to be proscribed in a very clear, specific and definite way. Certainty of outcome based on legal clarity is necessary for both perpetrator and victim, and goes all the way back to Judeo-Christian principles. Introducing a moral aspect when it comes to shoplifting is the thin end of a very large wedge.

The question of impact of a crime is a highly subjective matter, and therefore judgements are bound to vary across the board. Sure, there is a human element in our justice system as it is, but why would we want to add even more variables? And when other crimes are assessed on the same basis, we get into very tricky waters. Murder is murder, for example, even if the victim has an incurable disease. And so on.

David Lammy is right to focus attention on the growing problem of shoplifting. But in applying a moral relativitism, he’s entering a maze from which there is no clear escape.