Charles Clarke - Incompetent
20
April
I wanted to rant about this at length. But, it appears, I don’t need to. Language warning. No, not for DK’s post, you already know about his language. It’s Tim’s post that needs the warning. Yup, Tim Worstall is angry enough to title a post “fuck him”. More here and here, and doubtless in other places as well.
Message for Mr Clarke
You want to compensate the “victims of crime”? Good. Don’t you think the innocent locked away for a crime they didn’t commit is just as much a victim as the crimed against*?
You’ll save £5 million quid a year. Why not save much more money than that by scrapping the White Elephant National Identity Register? Oh, I forgot, that’s needed so the contract can be given to a nice Labour donating company like Crapita, right?
If we as a society get things wrong and imprison the innocent it is our duty, as that very society, to both say sorry and to compensate them as best we can.
*Obviously, context is all here, but the point stands
1. Joe Otten | April 20th, 2006 at 12:48 am
Just as much a victim, and, more significantly, a victim of the state.
Whether the state should compensate victims of 3rd party crimes is a reasonable question for the minimal state fanboys to rage about. Perhaps we should all get insurance against being victims of crime.
But for the state not to compensate those mistreated by the state - that is just adding to the injustice.