Main Edition
US
FR
September 28, 2024 - 1:00pm
Another month, another court case involving protesters, and another round of debate about how exactly the state should punish political disorder. Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland, from Just Stop Oil, have been given sentences of two years and 20 months respectively for an attack on Vincent Van Gogh’s Sunflowers.
We ought not perhaps lose too much sleep over this outcome. As judge Christopher Hehir noted, the women — who are entirely unrepentant — came close to permanently damaging an immensely important work of art. More broadly, attacks on art galleries are attacks on the bedrock of civilised life. JSO’s determination to continue with philistine vandalism was made clear yesterday afternoon, when more paintings were attacked.
All the same, in the coming days, it is almost certain that we will hear arguments to the effect that it is unfair for Plummer and Holland to face custodial sentences when criminals convicted of worse and more damaging crimes routinely avoid prison, or are treated leniently. Only last week, Huw Edwards was given a suspended sentence for possession of child pornography, after claiming in mitigation that not getting into Oxford more than four decades ago had been psychologically damaging.
This does not seem to be especially uncommon for those convicted of similar offences. Meanwhile, according to data from the Sentencing Council, the average custodial sentence for domestic burglary is 28 months — which in practice might mean barely a year, under current guidelines — and nearly a quarter of all domestic burglary convictions result in no prison time at all.
However, it’s vital to think clearly about where the injustice actually lies. The problem is not that we are too strict with Just Stop Oil. It would be highly counter-productive to treat them with kid gloves or let them off with a stern talking-to from the Bench. Climate extremism involving serious criminal damage and disruption clearly needs to be met with firm action.
Rather, we are not nearly strict enough with other categories of crime. Time and again, when the perpetrator of some horrible crime is brought to trial, it emerges that they have numerous previous convictions, for which they have served minimal prison time. Very often the offence in question has been committed after an early release — this is especially true of violent crimes against women, from sexual assault to murder.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAn issue that divides us into two groups. Which path you choose depends on your view of human nature. The last few decades has seen the judicial system treat people as all basically nice moral beings. Has it worked? Reverse ferret or double down?
We are woeful at rehabilitation and preventing re-offending. Whether that’s because the initial sentence too lenient isn’t entirely clear, but certainly for those who get a custodial the re-offending rate in the UK is high when compared with similar countries and v little rehab is done to try and avoid re-offending. As we know from the lack of prison places investment in the Prison and Probation system struggles to garner support when folks have to actually pay for it.
That said the US locks up more and for longer yet it’s serious violent crime rate 5+ times greater than the UK. Go figure.
That’s because some people are just evil and violent.
The goal of the criminal justice system is not rehabilitation, it’s punishment (to give justice to the victim), protection (keep the violent away from decent people), and deterrence.
The only one who can rehabilitate is the criminal him or herself. In general, according to experts, this only happens for serious criminals, if the find God, or some equivalent apotheosis, or they age out of the ability to successfully be a criminal.
So why do other nations have much lower reoffending rates if it’s all down to the individual?
It’s not all down to the individual, culture matters in determining the number of evil, violent people. The US and UK both have some pretty disastrous urban cultures, particularly among certain demographics.
But if it’s not all down to the individual, and culture matters, then individuals are not fully responsible for their actions. It also suggests that rehabilitation will be possible in some cases, if the “evil” is not hardwired.
That doesn’t follow. Whatever hand you’re dealt, you are morally responsible for how you play it. The VAST majority of people from dysfunctional cultures DON’T become violent criminals. It’s very possible to overcome your surrounding.
Everyone is fully responsible for their actions and that includes politicians and world “leaders”
Cos they put all their crims on boats or planes and send the bleeders here.
Well since Sir Cheer of Smarmer has sent a delegation to TEXAS to find out what their prison service is doing so right, expect the return of the Death Penalty soon. With a perfectly logical,rational and reasonable explanation of course and strictures against listening to misinformation and disinformation by those objecting to it. Oh and by the way could a West End Theatre put on a big revival of the show Oh What a Lovely War!.
Aw. I wonder why not!
I’ve no problem with longer sentences personally, but I agree just doing that and expecting change is a fools errand. Decent sentences coupled with much more effort going into actually trying to rehabilitate the criminal while they’re in there would be a much mor productive system in the long term
Until the 19th century prison was a temporary holding pen until the Quarter Assizes when a fat local worthy in his role as Magistrate ordered you to be hanged. If you were female you could get yourself preggers and get sent to America or later Australia instead. There were men who made a living getting convict girls preggers. For most of history PRISON was a death sentence as soon as you got apprehended. You knew your fate. I was told the reason to end the death penalty was that it would lessen crime because if potential rapists,murderers or other serious offenders knew their life would not be taken from them but they would be shown mercy they too would be merciful and stop short of terminating the life of the person they had raped or inflicted grievous bodily harm on. But people who are of a mind to commit a violent crime do not have their brains in accountancy mode,so that’s a stupid concept. But most concepts from the 1960s are stupid. Remember Germaine Greer, thats GERMAINE GREER,campaigning for the RIGHT of children to have sex,THE RIGHT OF CHILDREN TO HAVE SEX WITH ADULTS. I wonder why GERMAINE GREER was so popular with the BBC back then. Her and Jimmy Saville l.
Your grasp of history is a bit of a caricature – there were sophisticated systems of punishment including fining people in medieval times. It is true then that in the 18th century there were a vast number of crimes which in theory merited capital punishment. There seemed to be some kind of social panic by the upper classes after Acts of Enclosure etc forced many people off formerly common land, giving rise to resistance. Juries who saw the extreme injustice of some of these punishments often acquitted. That might be a better explanation of why some laws and sentences were liberalised.
Well let’s find out what great ideas Sir Keir gets back from Texas then. I’m sure a good rationale can be presented to us for the return of the death penalty just like the virtues of war and bombing is back in fashion
These deluded morons have no intention of not reoffending ! They are quite clear that they would do the same again and worse given the chance.
Given that they refuse to accept the law of the land and clearly don’t believe in the rule of law and the democratic process, they’re not leaving us much choice.
There really is (as they say) no cure for stupid.
The US supposedly has a higher percentage of psychopaths, if that is true and true for other psychological ailments then it might (in part or in full) help explain the higher crime rate. Then the question becomes: if true, why more psychological ailments? Greater diversity/lower trust? Higher mobility/less stability/less sense of place and order? Greater distinction between desires and reality?
And remember the crime rate for whites in the US is as far as I know about the same as for whites in the UK. So a new question, why the ethnic difference?
If that fact is correct then it does suggest an analysis of comparative incarceration rates between different European countries might have to take into account the comparative ethnic mix of the countries – something that would, of course, receive opposition as involving “racism”.
We have more black people than you who account for more than half the murders and violent crimes. If they were absent the rate would halve. It’s a frontier country with the remnants of a frontier mentality where you have to fight for your own justice.
Serious violent crime in the USA 5+ times greater than the UK. Go figure!
With a population of the USA around 5 times the UK it probably would be!
No, it would not necessarily be! The murder and violent crime RATE in the US is much much higher than in the UK. That is the numbers of murders or violent crimes compared to the population of the country. This is not a difficult concept!
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime
Then J Watson should have expressed the comment more accurately. Such as: ‘as a percentage of the population’
I really want to know. What is the habilitation that “offenders” are supposed to get “re’ed” back to. I know I don’t have that ‘habilitation” because all my life,from pre-school.days other people send me the unmistakable message,now in mostly non-verbal ways “we don’t like you,you’re not like us,you’re different,you don’t do what we do” (So whaddya do?) So if I ever got put in the slammer I couldn’t be REhabilitated could I? I’m a Lost Soul for sure.
Jane, what you are is your choice.
There are very major cultural differences between countries. Left wingers might be keen to stress the Japan is a very restrained society, with a strong element of social self sanction, rather than its very tough criminal laws and incarceration regime. I might actually agree with them that the social aspect is more important in reducing crime than the criminal justice regime. However there would be a lot in that that left wingers would not like, were we to try to implement such an approach here (we must not be judgmental of anyone must we?!). The US on the other hand has historically had a strong individualistic culture and of course enables people to have powerful weapons as a matter of right.
Rehabilitation sounds fantastic, but successfully and the reliably achieving it especially for the worst category of offenders, is much more difficult than pronouncing the word. A bit like with politician’s salaries, how likely are the public to support increased sums of taxpayers money being spent on people, some of whom have committed terrible crimes? I believe I read here that it’s also a bit of a myth that Norway is extremely good at rehabilitating offenders; it might well have low crime rates for other reasons, some of them of which left wingers might support such as a greater degree of equality and more respect given to people at the bottom of society. But here I may be reiterating another cliché!
Performative vandalism, like art/beauty, could easily be seen as being in the eye of the beholder. Make no mistake, i agree with Niall Gooch that it’s not that sentencing for these offenders is too strict but that comparative sentencing is too lenient.
The point i’d like to make is that it’s a short step from such acts and the kind of performative interventions that’ve been written about recently, such as:
div > p:nth-of-type(3) > a”>Led By Donkeys have no shame – UnHerd
which have subsequently been taken up by the art establishment and granted gallery space themselves.
If there’s a line to be drawn between the acts of JSO and Led By Donkeys i’d suggest it’s a pretty fine one.
Lock these entitled twerps up and throw away the key.
A cynic might suggest that the old punishment of putting malefactors in the stocks or in a pillory should be brought back. Imagine art vandals put in a pillory in the very art gallery where they carried out their vandalism. I suspect that gallery attendance would go up as people came in just to see the spectacle.
Putting them in a pillory in the National Gallery would do more harm than good. People would start by throwing rotten tomatos at the vandals, and soon start throwing them at the paintings. Better to pillory them in Hyde Park.
Don Cox
A suggestion I hear more and more, Erik…perhaps one in every town?
In every art gallery anyway.
couldn’t be uglier or stupider than 9/10ths of modern “art”
It could just be called “performance art.”
Hello Richard, good to see you here – remember me, Kate, from the Speccie? 🙂
As part of their punishment, I would make them study an artistic skill until they are competent at it. Learning the effort that goes into art should make them think twice about mindlessly attacking great creations. In the long term, it’s not actually a punishment. As I know from my pottery classes, there’s a lot of pleasure to be found in making a wonky mug.
I partly agree, but would actually rather see people who want to create something given that opportunity.
I’d rather see them cleaning up vandalism for the remainder of their days. It might be a bit excessive, but if they trashed any of my paintings – irrespective of being of slightly less cultural importance as van Gogh – it’s probably what I’d demand.
Ultimately it isn’t about the value, which is important, or even the cultural significance or that people appreciate the art. It is the destruction of someone’s time, passion, endeavour and imagination – things that cannot be replaced.
Yes, that’s a fair point. I would be very angry if someone attacked my work. Cleaning up vandalism should definitely be part of the punishment, alongside something that gives them the opportunity to learn the value of art.
The sentence was far too lenient. JSO is a xenocidal terrorist group. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge but aiming to kill worldwide, not merely one nation. JSO and its backers and conspirators shoukd have been on trial as well. Not merely the moronic foot soldiers.
Yes, organizations that use vandalism of art and historical sites/objects to gain attention should be taken to task. Approach them like the criminal enterprises they are through infiltration and surveillance. Raise the stakes for attempted damages to historical treasures and bankrupt them.
As I’m still yet to understand the link between art and climate change* (if anyone in the comments can explain it to me, I’ll be forever grateful), this just looks like an act of vandalism with a spurious justification.
Unless excessive use of oil paints is in fact a more a substantial problem than the internal combustion engine, we could use acrylic instead, although they are probably also manufactured from petroleum distillation. Bloody art, ruining the environment.
* If the answer is raising awareness, I’d be even more eager to meet those people in the UK who are not aware of the subject and keen to understand the lifestyle they have led to avoid it all these years.
I’m not sure myself, but I think it has something to do with tomato soup
Probably some moronic acknowledgement of Andy Warhol, albeit with a British brand.
But why are they buying soup from a company which (I presume) is a heavily polluting, exploitative exemplar of “late capitalism”? Couldn’t they get something more eco-friendly at the farmers’ market?
Fairtrade avacado?
Any acknowledgement of Andy Warhol is moronic.
Random bourgeois anarchism as a form of self-therapy for the bored and ennervated bourgeoisie.
There was a good article on here recently, by Heron, referencing this and JG Ballard
Vandalising a Van Gogh painting creates more public attention than vandalising a petrol station. And the average visitor of art galeries is less likely to put up resistance than the average visitor of a petrol station.
There is no good reason why art galleries must be regarded as the bedrock of civilised life. There are millions of people in the country who have never managed to visit an art gallery, yet manage effortlessly to lead a civilised life. The bedrock of civilised life is the ability to reflect and to be self-aware. Take the Uffizi gallery. It has grown out of the donation of the Medici collection. Yet should you take a look at the lives that the Medicis led, is any trace of civilised life visible there? Art galleries should be regarded in the same way that stamp collections are, repositories of markers of the passage of time.
Direct attacks on cultural treasures should result in punishment, whether we punish other criminals enough or not. The issues are not related. It makes no sense to say that because burglars are not punished sufficiently in the UK, then no one else should be adequately punished for other crimes.
There are those who claim it’s only a painting, it’s only art. But treating lightly these protests gives approval to attacking things you don’t agree with. For these people all their actions are justified until eventually it enables them to physically attack people they disagree with. It might be a cream pie today but the next act may be more violent. This sentence is not an infringement on free speech rights.
Didn’t the Nazis start by attacking art. I’ve heard it said that it starts by burning books and ends with burning people.
These are silly young girls who don’t know what they’re doing. Community service would be a better solution than prison which should be reserved for violent criminals. Especially as it’s currently one in one out in the UK prison system, so you have to ask who has just been released to make way for these two?
I agree they are sill girls but would community service stop these and similar silly girls from vandalism in the name of JSO? The answer is almost certainly not. If you want to stop something you have to provide a sufficient deterrent.
Oddly enough I agree with one of them. Hard physical work would be no bad thing. But prison?
There is no hard physical work any more and the little there is should not be stolen from the people who need to earn even the low wages from this honest work. If we put prisoners to do the few hands on jobs remaining apart from that they would do it badly we would be taking away some peoples modest but vital income. As all these Indigos and Saffrons are from wealthy families who live in old Manor Houses in Dorset the parents should be fined heavily,there solved two problems,there’s your Wealth Tax.
whatever happened to breaking rocks on the moor?
Maybe a bit unfair (but they’ll be out way before they finish that sentence in any case) but frankly, those idiots have been humoured too long.
A major justification for the justice system is that it discourages lynch mobs, vigilantes, and vendettas.
If criminals are seen to escape firm enough justice then the risk of people applying their own vengeance increases.
If criminals are seen to suffer unduly harsh justice then the risk of people avoiding the justice system increases.
It’s a trade-off. Currently we appear to be edging towards a justice system that is too soft.
Take away their passports, which surely theydon’t need anyway because a true eco-warrior would abstain from tavelling by ship or airplane.
Also put them on no-fly lists like the terrorists.
Why bother with courts? The other people in the art gallery at the time can impose a much more effective form of punishment.
Allowing vigilantism will only breed more serious crimes since some of the vigilantes will go too far.
JSO just make people very, very angry. All they do is hurt their own cause. Locking them up does more for their aims than anything they do themselves.
Jurists say that there are three components to the rationale for jailing people who have committed crimes: retribution, deterrence and incapacitation.
In this specific case,
[1] The retribution component should ignore their claim that they were motivated by some cause or other.
[2] The incapacitation component should be based on whether they have a track record of this sort of thing. If they haven’t, I would be inclined to see if the retribution component puts them off future acts.
[3] Deterrence is slightly tricky because some causes attract martyrs. But if a heavy sentence does have a deterrent effect then so be it.
I don’t support what they did, but they just look like children. Idealistic, misguided – but due for a two year prison sentence?
Life,in my opinion.
Was it fair, yes. It’s the sentencing of two 12yr olds machete murder of a 19yr old in Wolverhampton that’s an outrage. It’s the sentence of the Southport murderer that will be telling….
So do you think young Axel,was he born in Sweden? actually exists. In what Southport church are his parents pillars of the church community. How did a poor, underpriviied (arent they all) refugee,uneducated,needy and illiterate black family get to be living in what I’ve read is an upmarket residential white area with the paywall invisible boundary. In the old days that press would have answered those questions. Is the whole story made up?
People I have said,my friend has a friend who knows one of the families or my auntie lives down the road from..but it’s all friend of a friend stuff.
Tell us. – what church.
JSO is populated by people without meaning in their empty lives, so they are seeking attention. They’re too stupid to understand how terrible the world would be for all of us, but particularly the poorest among us, without oil. Dumb as rocks.
They are so narcissistic it’s likely that even if they knew the terrible toll the sick and needy among us would suffer without oil, they wouldn’t care.
Trying to get a job when you have jail time on your CV should be a reminder that actions have consequences… Wonder if Daddy will give them a job once they leave the clink?
Trust Fund kids.
Heinz tomato soup isn’t even vegan. Lightweights.
Tbh, if I was the dictator of Britain, I would simply have them publicly flogged until they started crying
No. Should have been life. With no parole. Ha ha ha.
I think there cases where act such as those employed by climate activists would be justified. There is merit to the argument that peacful but disruptive civil disobedience is a legit mechanism in a democracy. And surely there are causes that are more important than works of art, valuable as they are.
The problem with Just Stop Oil is that it is nowhere near to such a cause. It is an ideology which, if it came to pass, would mean the impoverishment and death of hundreds of millions from hunger and cold. These activists are delusional fanatics and have nothing to contribute to a necessary discourse about responding to the climate change.
Excellent, concise article!
‘Their revealed preference is for a feebler and less responsive criminal justice system across the board.’
I disagree that this is the general view of the left.