The state has almost ceased to attack innocent people
in the West,
being the last remaining major battlefield.
Apart from the Drug War,
the major way
that human rights and civil liberties are assaulted
in the West today
is by individuals attacking us.
I do not see why we should tolerate this any more
than we tolerate the state attacking us.
Once the drug issue is resolved, it seems the spotlight of the
civil liberties group should
finally swing away from the state
and towards crime.
- Why do old-fashioned liberals always sympathise with killers?
Robert Sheehan and two friends
set two small children on fire
in Sept 2006.
The 4 year old and 6 year old
suffered horrific burns.
The Irish state declined to take seriously the protection of its citizens from this man,
and he was soon free to attack other people.
He attacked the wrong person
and was shot dead in Sept 2012. Comments here
probably express what most people feel.
The left seem to instinctively take the side of the criminals
(such as burglars)
over the decent people.
- jailed in England for shooting a burglar in 1999.
Freed after 3 years in prison.
- jailed in Ireland for shooting a violent burglar in 2004.
Spent 1 year in prison.
Freed at re-trial.
a businessman in Dundalk in 2008, sleeping at home with his wife and three children (age 10, 14 and 15) in the house,
woke up in the night to find this burglar,
in his bedroom armed with a screwdriver.
McCaughey chased him out of the house, and chased him in his car, hitting him with the car
and stopping his escape.
Screenshot from RTE.
Most people in Ireland would applaud.
But look at what happened next:
First, the burglar sued McCaughey for his injuries - and won.
McCaughey's car insurance paid the burglar €175,000
(without telling McCaughey).
Second, the burglar only got a suspended sentence for the burglary.
Third, the Irish state prosecuted McCaughey for assaulting the burglar.
Thankfully, the jury had far more sense than the state, and they spoke for all of Ireland when they acquitted him on 15 Feb 2012.
But it is cold comfort since McCaughey is left with legal bills over €100,000.
Almost every comment here
No wonder the jury acquitted, if these commenters are representative.
"I wouldn't have had to hear too much of the evidence to return a Not Guilty verdict."
probably sums up how the jury felt:
"any "scumbag" going up before a jury in Ireland today is not going to win
all the jury will be focusing on is the fact that the burglar was in someones house armed with a screwdriver before the incident.
you sit in a jury stand for a couple of days and everything else about the case is passing you by apart from the fact that the guy sitting over there could have possibly broken into your house".
There is no justice here.
The burglar should get years in jail.
McCaughey's wife should sue the burglar
for thousands, for invading her home and causing mental trauma
to her and her children.
10 year old daughter
was terrified, and
could not sleep at the house for months afterwards.
Where's her compensation for that?
An award of €175,000 would be about right.
In contrast to most burglars, he has the money to pay up.
The Guardian, 8 Dec 2011, blames the police (sadly this is serious, not a satire)
nearly three-quarters of the rioting scum had been stopped and searched
in the previous year.
They think there is something wrong with this.
They do not draw the obvious conclusion - that the police are good at their job and know
who the criminal scum are
in each area.
The Guardian also blames the riots on the fact that thieving scum
- who squandered their chances at school
and now live off the taxes of productive people -
feel "alienated" from society.
As if that is our fault, not theirs.
Neil O'Brien, December 5, 2011, destroys The Guardian's study.
He discovers that (surprise) the rioters were largely already criminals.
76 percent of rioters had previous convictions.
There were an incredible average of 11 previous offences per rioter.
45 percent of rioting males age 10-17 had previous convictions.
Compared to only 2 percent of all males age 10-17 in the population.
i.e. Young male rioters were 22 times more likely than the population to have a record.
Neil O'Brien notes the rioters whining about the police in The Guardian's study:
"Criminals don't like the police. I'm shocked, shocked!"
"According to a major survey most rioters said that if it was not for the police not being there they would probably not have stolen quite so many things.
One rioter said: "It was only when the police eventually arrived and prevented me from stealing my ninth Wii in two days that I got very angry and decided to go home and pretend I had been watching television the whole time."
Another rioter said: ..
"It was our chance to take back the streets where we hang around all day, frightening people."
"Also, I'm sick of having my knives confiscated.""
If only The Guardian had this sense of humour.
If only The Guardian slagged off street scum,
instead of pandering to them.
Nice to see the judges kicking these rioters hard:
The 2014 Ferguson riots were a story we have seen before.
Cop-haters, gangstas and radical leftists protest about the death/injury of a criminal.
The police are slandered and property is destroyed.
What was different this time was that
US President supported the protesters and rioters against the police.
Thug robs a shop, threatens shop owner.
Could have escaped if he didn't act aggressively with a cop soon after.
Assaults cop, tries to grab his gun, gets shot.
Keeps charging at the cop. Gets shot dead.
Not very controversial, you would think.
If the cop and robber were white, it would never have made the news.
But the cop was white and the robber black, so a certain sort of person went insane.
The cop was investigated, but no charges were brought.
So the rioters went insane again.
Ferguson riots, Aug-Nov 2014.
Thug-lovers and cop-haters riot and burn businesses in Ferguson, and protest in other cities.
We've seen this story before. But here's what's different:
The US President
encourages the anger and rioting
instead of siding with the police.
He says it is "understandable"
that people are "deeply disappointed, even angry"
that the cop was not charged.
He links the incident to
"the legacy of racial discrimination in this country",
despite the fact there is zero evidence the cop was a racist.
Obama is just disgusting.
If I was a cop I would be furious with him.
The Missouri State Governor
encourages the anger and rioting
instead of siding with the police.
He is angry that the video of Brown robbing the store was released.
He says that
"to attempt in essence to disparage the character [of Brown] in the middle of a process like this is not right".
Why not side with the hard-working, tax-paying store owner
and with the police who risk their lives to protect everyone?
Blood on Obama's hands:
The shooting of Michael Brown in Aug 2014
and the death of Eric Garner
in July 2014
caused a hysteria about "racist cops",
fuelled by President Obama,
which led inevitably to dead cops.
Salon, 25 Nov 2014, describes it as "sick" that anyone would support the cop in the Michael Brown case.
In reality, Salon is sick.
Encouraging criminal mobs instead of standing with the police.
John Lott says:
"50 percent of counties in the US have zero murders in any given year and another 25 percent have just one murder. Over 70 percent of murders take place in just a little over 3 percent of the counties".
Yet again, it seems, crime is not caused by poverty.
It certainly looks as if something started to go wrong
in the UK in the 1960s.
That crime rose despite society getting far richer.
Stats from here
Likewise, as Ireland gets richer, it has more murders.
Stats from here.
How Ireland's wealth increased massively since 1950.
Contrary to left-wing dogma, this led to an increase, not decrease, in crime.
Stats from Angus Maddison.
As Ireland gets richer, it has more serious (indictable) crimes.
Stats from here.
with personal experience of thousands of underclass criminals,
writes more convincingly about the causes of crime than anyone I know.
The Most Politically Correct Magazine in the World
by Theodore Dalrymple
points out that
the left disregards 5,000 years
of knowledge about
unchanging human nature,
and the nature of evil and selfishness,
and now believes that
crime is caused by deprivation and inequality,
terrorism is a response to oppression and suffering, and
war is caused by poverty and inequality.
"The BMJ's procrustean
theory of war is the liberal theory of crime writ large and applied on a global scale. Poverty makes men desperate, and desperation drives them to crime or (if they happen to control an army) to war. It is therefore up to us - the rich and contented portion of humanity - to prevent crime and war by paying more: for social welfare programs in the case of crime, for foreign aid in the case of war. ...
It is a tribute to the distorting power on educated minds of an abstract theory that anyone could believe such rubbish.
... The fact that crime in Britain has risen along with income should have been sufficient to persuade the BMJ that a more complex theory of human motivation was necessary: but the disregard of elementary reality is perhaps the distinguishing feature of much modern intellectual life."
The idea that crime and terrorism are logical responses to "oppression":
The same is true for crime.
Crime is caused by memes, not poverty.
Poverty was far worse in the past, and yet there was less crime, not more.
".. contrary to the modern sentimental view, not all
anger is justified or even sincere. Indeed, much of it is the
product of dishonesty and bad faith combined with sheer
ignorance. And far from assuaging this dishonest rage,
liberal breast-beating fans it, sustains it and appears to
Why prison works
- "It is difficult to convince complacent middle-class intellectuals of the degree to which life in the poorest third of our society is dominated and further impoverished by crime and criminality."
Most crime is local,
and it's the respectable working class
who suffer the most.
The people to feel sorry for are
not the criminals (for sure),
and not so much the people who live in
middle class, low-crime areas.
The people to really feel sorry for are
working class, high-crime areas.
Crime is caused by ideas, not by poverty.
Most criminals in the west are not decent people, starving and
"stealing a chicken to feed their family".
Feed their expensive drug, alcohol and gambling habits, perhaps -
while they beat up their family.
Or just lazy layabouts who want a DVD player but don't want to work.
Most criminals are greedy, lazy, selfish bullies.
It's old-fashioned language, and it's annoying for them to hear it.
But they need to hear it. Because that is what they are.
They are not victims. They are greedy, lazy, selfish bullies.
Crime is caused by ideas.
Crime is caused by bad, selfish ideas in criminals' heads.
This is the only explanation that makes any sense for the vast increase in crime in the west.
much of modern popular and intellectual culture encourages those ideas.
The theory that "Poverty causes crime":
Yes, it is true that people with something to lose (a house, a job)
tend not to commit crime.
And that will always be true, whether crime rates are high or low.
But that does not mean that poverty causes crime.
First, poverty was greater in the past and crime was less.
Second, let me suggest a much more disturbing theory for the left:
Saying that "poverty causes crime" causes crime.
You may not think that these rarified sociological ideas percolate down to the
uneducated criminals on the street, but as
shows, they do.
In garbled form, through popular culture, criminals get the message that they are victims
and "society" owes them.
It is a message they are only too eager to hear.
Every selfish thug and bully likes to hear justifications for his actions.
Telling criminals that poverty causes crime is:
(1) encouraging the criminals, and:
(2) dismissing the noble majority of poorer people who get on with it
and work hard and try to better themselves.
Ironically, comfortable middle class sociologists pronouncing in the media
that poverty and inequality cause crime,
may themselves be a cause of crime.
How else to explain the rising levels of crime as prosperity increased?
"Sociology causes crime" may be more true than
"Poverty causes crime".
Crime is caused by memes, not by poverty.
"It is probably no coincidence that the profession of criminology underwent a vast expansion
at about the same time that criminal activity began the steepest part of its exponential rise.
Of course, it might have been that the problem of crime called forth its students.
But since social problems are often of a dialectical nature, could it not also have been that
the students called forth their problem?
Since the cause of crime is the decision of criminals to commit it,
what goes on in their minds is not irrelevant. Ideas filter down selectively from the academy
into the population at large, through discussions (and often bowdlerizations)
in the papers and on TV, and become intellectual currency. In this way, the ideas of criminologists
could actually become a cause of crime."
Owen Corrigan, 25 Jan 2010, provides a good example of how the left encourages crime.
Complaining about capitalism, he says:
"Cut taxes right back to the bone and abolish various welfare supports and you may well encourage people back into work. But don't start complaining when you have to step over the destitute on your way to your morning commute and don't be surprised when you get home to find you've been burgled by people driven to criminality."
You can almost hear his glee at the thought of
hard-working bourgeois middle-class people getting burgled.
Of course, no burglar in the West is driven to it.
They do it because
that's the type of person they are.
They do it because
they are greedy, lazy, selfish bullies.
Fr. Peter McVerry
is a left-wing priest who works with the homeless, drug addicted, and
But he seems to have little understanding of the suffering and fear these criminals inflict on
the decent, hard-working members of society.
Fr. Peter McVerry, 22 Aug 2012:
"the greatest suffering inflicted on Irish people in recent years was caused, not by burglars in jeans, but by professionals in designer suits."
Another strange position by western civil liberties groups
is to be against the death sentence
The one valid argument against the death sentence, it seems to me,
is that sometimes you will get the wrong person.
The argument against this, though,
is that less innocent people will die
than if murderers stay alive -
some of whom will
kill again within prison and after they leave
case histories like these
The errors of justice, in this view,
are to be regarded as terrible
accidents in an imperfect human world, like car accidents
(which, because we allow cars to exist,
at least a thousand times
more innocents every year)
or civilian casualties in war,
and everything possible should be done to minimise
such accidents (e.g. by repeatedly examining the case for years
Whether this argument is convincing or not,
it is certainly true that the position that will lead
to the death of the most innocents
is the anti-death-penalty position.
John O'Sullivan, August 30, 2002,
finds that in the US, where some states have capital punishment and some don't,
there have been 820 murders committed by those who have already committed a murder,
served their sentence, and been released (or who murdered in prison).
These 820 innocent people would be alive if capital punishment had been used.
O'Sullivan says the anti-death penalty position is:
"it is better to acquiesce reluctantly
in the murder of 820 innocent men than to execute
mistakenly 1 innocent man"
Norman Tebbit, September 18, 2012, says that in the UK,
since the death penalty was suspended,
about 150 people have been killed by persons previously convicted of homicide.
The ban on capital punishment has killed 150 innocent people so far in the UK,
about 3 people every year.
"Would our courts have sentenced to death three innocent people a year, year in year out? I doubt it."
In any case,
civil liberties groups argue that even if it is the right person,
it is immoral to kill them.
This to me is simply a dogmatic assertion.
Some people believe that killers have an inalienable "right to life".
Morality, human rights and civil liberties do not really "exist".
They are invented by us in order to preserve civilization.
Believing that such rights should only apply to
is a perfectly reasonable
I would also support the death penalty for permanently disabling someone
(brain damaging someone,
setting someone on fire,
cutting off their limbs).
The "United Killers of Benetton"
The Benetton company,
who sell bland, crappy sweaters,
produced ads in 2000 with pictures of death row killers.
Nothing to do with their product.
Just designed to shock and get attention.
They even included child killers.
chose to include nothing about the victims (of course).
"This campaign is not about victims. It is about the death penalty. The death penalty is unreligious.
The 10 Commandments say 'Thou shalt not kill.' It is against the law."
Benetton's Evil Ads:
"Jesse Compton's profile is typical. A full-page headshot accompanies an interview. "What did you want to be when you grew up?" he is asked. "A lumberjack," he replies. The questioner follows up:
"What does it feel like when you're cutting through a tree?" Left unasked, however, is what it feels like to burn a three-year-old girl with a propane torch or puncture her stomach with a fork
- subjects that Compton became an authority on when he and his girlfriend tortured her daughter to death."
Of course they do have some principles:
"Benetton's only condition is that the inmates be photographed in their normal prison clothes and not clothing which would promote another company, such as a Gap shirt."
3 year old
Tesslynn O'Cull (above)
beaten, burned, sexually assaulted, starved, tortured, mutilated
and finally murdered by her 20 year old "step-father"
Jesse Compton in Oregon in 1997.
Compton was sentenced to death by lethal injection,
but is still alive today
on death row.
Much of the population is to the right of me on crime
To summarise, I've no problem with there being no death penalty,
if that is what society wants.
My problem is with civil liberties groups
who have their blind spots
and who fail to recognise
crime is a civil liberties issue.
And the issue is the civil liberties of the victims.
British public opinion on crime 2003 shows
of course that no death penalty
is not "what society wants".
If a free democratic vote was ever allowed, the death penalty would be restored
In fact, I am constantly surprised at how
much of the population is to the right of me
Save the Newchurch Guinea Pigs
animal rights terrorists
were given 12 year sentences in 2006,
which I thought about right, even a little high, given they did not kill anyone.
shows 45 percent agree with me that the sentences were about right,
but a further 40 percent think they should have got more.
Only 8 percent of people are to the left of me.