THE EDITOR of the Observer ends his courteous letter in
our correspondence columns this week by saying that he gladly accepts my 'taunt that the Observer takes racialism particularly seriously.' I made no such taunt. What I did say was that the Observer was inconsistent in approving of high sentences for 'nigger-hunting' in order `to make It promptly and unmistakably known to other Youths and their parents that criminal activities of this kind will carry heavy penalties,' since its usual admirable attitude to crime was that its causes were far too complex to be dealt with by a few heavy sentences. Mr. Astor's answer is that because severe punishment does not effec- tively deter some crimes it does not follow that it will not deter others. Quite true, but surely it raises a presumption? Admittedly, Mr. Astor makes a distinction between 'individual' crimes such as murder and 'social' crimes such as race riots; but I do not think it is a real one, since murders are not always individual and it would presumably be quite possible for one man to start a race riot. All crimes of violence are individual in the sense that they are committed by individuals and social, in the sense that they affect the com- munity. Obviously both aspects must be taken into account at all times. My point is that the balance between them should be kept roughly the same and not varied to suit individual prejudices.
Previous page
