ARRESTS ON SUSPICION
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] Watson's article on "Arrests on Suspicion" makes out an irrefutable case for some alteration in our present procedure. If 30 per cent. of the eases of persons arrested for intent to commit a felony are discharged it is a clear proof that in many instances the police are over-zealous. But what certainty can there be that the magistrates always succeed in distinguishing those cases in which the police are over-zealous from those in which they are justified ? Recently a London magistrate dismissed a case in which two lads were charged with loitering with intent, though they appear to have been doing nothing more serious than looking at a shop window. He commented that the case should never have been brought. But not all magistrates. are so trained in the hearing of evidence or so uninfluenced by the point of view of the police, especially if the man charged already has a bad record. As Mr. Watson says, the present situation undoubtedly militates against the ex-prisoner who really wishes to keep straight, and if this is so, it involves an injury both to the individual and to Society.
The only way of entirely preventing injustice is to make a man's actions rather than his intentions the basis of any arrest. After all neither police nor magistrates can claim to be thought- readers and if one comes to think of it, it is bordering on the absurd that an act of thought-reading should be regarded as sufficient basis for police action. But until the present methods are radically altered some check on injudicious charges would be provided if monthly reports on all cases of arrest on suspicion, with the results, were sent to the Home Office by the police authorities. This would make the police act with greater circumspection without preventing them from taking any action that was really necessary for the prevention of crime.—! am, &c., W. A. Emmy,
• The Howard League for Penal Reform, Hon. Press Secretary.
' Parliament Mansions, Orchard Street-, S.W. 1.
Previous page
