Punishments for Convicted Rioters

Last week's New York Times followed up the British rioting with an article, Britain Will Force Convicted Rioters to Clean Up. Link to the article here. The Times, using media and Labor, Liberal Democrats, and Conservative Party officials as sources, portrayed British society, especially the government, as unbalanced and agitated by the property damage, looting, and violence that occurred earlier this month. The Times stated that London police, reading rioters' social media posts, carefully guarded the 2012 Olympic Village and "higher-end shopping malls,"  The Times gives no proof but insinuated that Scotland Yard was less zealous in protecting life and property in sites that lacked landmark status or high economic value.

Did the police assess the political and economic value of sites before protecting them? If true (and only if true), the people should vote for candidates that would change that policy. I believe the police must anticipate where the rioters will be and protect that area, regardless of the exclusivity of the neighborhood.

The Times  also gave examples of miscarriage of justice--young people thrown in jail for looting items worth only a few dollars or inciting others to riot. The Times article does not state whether the opposite took place--other rioters getting a slap on the wrist for more serious crimes. The Times also did not give statistics stating the percentage of criminals that were justly punished. I will assume that the British justice system, as a whole, did execute justice swiftly and properly.

Lastly, The Times quoted critics that complained about a double standard. White collar criminals in the financial crisis were not punished as harshly as the rioters. This issue too needs to be explored further. Did the courts go easy on the bankers because they were upper-middle class or because the penal code mandates harsher punishment for mayhem and violence?

Postscript: I recommend Jonathan Sach's post here. He says that a breakdown of the social order was the cause, and a rejuvenation of religious institutions, as occurred early in the 19th century in both Britain and America,  can solve the problem. Berel Wein writes in his newsletter (September, 2011) that the Israelis are frustrated by the failures of liberalism and socialism and never-ceasing hostility of much of the world.

Social Unrest: Britain and Israel

Both Britain and Israel are in the news because of social unrest--British mobs continue to throw Molotov cocktails, set fire to cars and shops, loot smashed storefronts, attack police and innocent bystanders, steal, and commit murder.

The left blames the rioting on disenfranchised youth responding to government austerity programs. The right blames the social unrest on socialism--bad behavior should be expected when class warfare is encouraged and people expect to be supported without having to pay for it.

In Israel thousands continue to demonstrate in tent cities, calling for social justice:

Protesters are uniting over the high costs of housing, rearing children, fuel, electricity and food but the dominant slogan has been: "The people demand social justice."

A greater percentage of Israelis than British are involved in their respective protests, but there is much less violence in Israel. Like Britain, Israel has a large middle class as well as rich and poor, and Israel had a socialist past. People in both countries look to the government for a solution to their problems. Before the UN declaration of statehood, Britain controlled the area and many Israeli institutions are based on a British model.

Why then are the Israeli protests peaceful? I believe there are a few reasons. First, most Israelis are not religious but are still taught Bible and ethics in the primary grades of school. Second, almost all Israelis, men and women, have served their country, creating a population devoted to the state of Israel and bringing into society a general feeling of unity among the citizenry. Last, I believe Israeli society does not break down as neatly, as it once did, into the earlier fault lines of religious versus secular, Ashkenazic versus Sephardic, and Arab versus Jew. Britain, on the other hand, must still contend with a much more heterogeneous society--diverse peoples brought from 200 years of empire.

Postscript: The Israeli daily Haaretz saw the Israeli protests as predominantly a middle class affair. Predictably, the left-wing paper looked at little except class and race divisions. Link here.

Postscript late 2012: The European left and the Jewish problem here.