A Spectator's Notebook
I CANNOT HELP thinking that the Observer will regret its defence last week of the heavy sentences passed on the nine youths who went 'nigger-hunting.' While admitting that 'four years in gaol is not likely to be the best method of reforming the young men' (a considerable understatement), it maintained that 'the prime need was to make it promptly and unmistakably known to other youths and their parents that criminal activities of this kind will carry heavy penalties.' The Observer's liberal attitude to colonial and colour questions is well known, and it is not surprising either that it should find 'nigger-hunting' abhor- rent, or that it should be rather emotional about it. The trouble is that other people, in their way as worthy and admirable as the Observer, find different sorts of crime abhorrent and become emotional about them. And when they do, they are promptly criticised by the Observer for not keeping their heads. Does the Observer really think that a few heavy sentences will stamp out 'nigger-hunting'? If so, why does it confine this belief to 'colour' crimes? If it really thinks the causes of crime are so simple that heavy sen- tences are the way to deal with them, it should be calling for long periods of imprisonment for rob- bery, etc., and for the return of the cat and the rope. And it should be grateful for the fact that in the agenda for this year's Conservative Con- ference no fewer than three pages are devoted to resolutions calling for heavier penalties for crime, including many demanding the reintroduc- tion of corporal punishment.
Previous page
