There are two truisms that should guide your understanding of anything related to crime and punishment- If it looks too simple, then it is; and the law of unintended consequence. As I was being soundly mauled on Twitter recently for suggesting legalising pepper spray is a double edged sword, these two truisms were firmly in my mind.
The outbreak of random stabbings has sharply highlighted how strict British law is. While the stabbers are equipped with fearsome weapons, the would be stabbees are left with nothing but balls and a rolled up newspaper with which to fend them off. This situation could prevail only under two circumstances - that such crimes were perceived as being so uncommon as to not be worrisome, coupled with faith in the State to do their best to protect us.
Current circumstances do not hold to those conditions. Across Europe, not just the UK, seemingly random knife attacks are seeming to become regular events. And faith in the police is at an all time low, mainly due to their playing partial politics. As with anything criminal justice related, the actual truth of these perceptions is irrelevant. People FEEL vulnerable.
This extends to the powers that be, who float ideas of arming all metropolitan police. And there is a rising populist call for some weapons to be legalised for self defence, such as pepper sprays. At this point, the two truisms of “unintended consequences” and “simple ideas” cannot fail to break through in my mind. A lifetime of watching populist driven policies that have not only failed but delivered perverse results leaves me suspicious of any quick solutions.
To give you some idea of police and guns, there are 6,300 routinely armed civilian police. That's 3.9% of the total 150,000 police nationally. The interesting bit of data is how many times these police actually shoot, not just deploy. There are an average 6.5 incidents with shots fired by police annually. That's it. Most years its 2 to 4 incidents. Nationally. The police do not regularly find the need to shoot.
These police are specialists. Its what they do day in and day out. Their training regime is regular and solid. This contrasts sharply with matters into the 1980’s, where firearms police were a farce, running around with revolvers with only 3 days annual training. And it showed. Ask Stephen Waldorf.
And
there's the rub - to routinely arm 150,000 police means returning to
those bad old days. Because it's impossible to deliver significant
training to a good standard to 150,000 armed police. The level of
skill would be appallingly low and bear no relation to current armed
officers. So suddenly the idea of routinely arming all police seems
to run into some risk; for while it may lead to incidents being met
with force faster, the down side is these police will be poorly
trained and will inevitably shoot when there is no such need.
Note
the recent synagogue incident, where specialist police shot two
civilians while shooting the attacker. And these are very skilled
police. Imagine a plod with a few days training at such an event
rather than specialists. Mayhem, chaos and dead bystanders.
And
this downside just escapes the commentariat. It just never appears in
conversation or analysis. But the reality is, arming all police could
lead to more deaths than not arming them. Arming all police could
result in more undeserved killings than those committed by the people
they are meant to stop. It would be a net negative.
We are in the difficult position of an increasing fear of violent crime being met with potential solutions that could increase the sum of dead innocent people. And so many are pondering taking their safety into their own hands, railing against the restrictions currently on weapons of self defence. Pepper sprays seem to get particular attention.
And like all simple ideas, legalising incapacitant sprays sounds marvellous on the face of it. Being able to fend off wrong ‘uns with the press of a finger is a very attractive proposition. Except…We must never forget that the more widespread a weapon is, the easier its availability, then bad actors also have that access.
At present getting spray is awkward and illegal. Very few criminals use it, for the same reason few upstanding people do - restricted availability. If the prohibition was lifted and all can buy sprays freely, then we have just placed an incapacitant spray into the hands of bad people.
Of course, legality isn't a barrier for criminals. But availability is a factor that effects the upstanding and the criminal alike. Easing restrictions benefits everyone, including criminals. Few criminals use weapons of any sort, they are not interested in violence. Use of a knife, for example, risks actually having to stab someone, a scenario most criminals don't ever want to be in. But an incapacitant spray doesn't carry those risks. It is temporary and non lethal. A perfect tool for muggers and rapists.
Weapons for self defence are also just weapons, they can be used criminally. If we are to ease restrictions on some weapons for defence, we should do so in the full knowledge that it is a double edged sword and may cause more harm than it prevents. Difficult times require hard decisions. Make them with consideration and not in response to populist spasms.
