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.
SubscribePerformative 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.
An 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?
Lock these entitled twerps up and throw away the key.