When Law-Makers are Law-Breakers
What should happen to a policeman known to have committed a crime severe enough to warrant imprisonment? Or a sanctimonious priest known to be living in cardinal sin? What sentence would you recommend for a high court judge found guilty of a crime for which they had themselves harshly condemned others?
Well, what if it was a law-maker themselves? Shouldn’t it be all the worse? Apparently not, given the absence over a stir from Louise Mensch MP’s admittance of past drug abuse . The BBC website placed the story seventh in its UK Politics section on a fairly slow news day. Mail Online had nothing in its news or comments on Saturday, despite finding space for a story on a shoplifting seagull. The Telegraph posted the story on page five, complete with glamorous photo of the MP posing outside Westminster in an evening dress.
None had quoted drug campaigners, former addicts or bereaved parents of teenage drug casualties as is typically done when a scientist or police commissioner calls for decriminalisation. None mentioned that 1,400 people were jailed in 2010 simply for possessing illegal drugs. The current maximum penalty for possessing mild drugs like ecstasy is seven years in prison; if the police suspect an individual intended to pass the substance to a friends, that individuals risks life imprisonment. Those lucky enough to receive a mere caution can expect it to follow them around their entire life, hindering their life chances and effectively ruling out a career as a lawyer, teacher or police officer. While the press and police are happy to pursue Chris Huhne for a crime allegedly committed eight years ago, it seems no punishment will befall Mensch.
There are reasons not to care. Firstly, the exposé by an anonymous journalist at a time when the exposed is campaigning hard to bring down law-breaking journalists seems suspicious. Secondly, it is right that private debauchery should be kept in the private sphere unless clearly an issue in the public interest. Finally, despite widespread support to maintain prohibition, much of the public see drugs possession as the indiscretion that Mensch makes it out to be.
Within minutes of the news breaking, however, the public interest aspect became clear when the MP stated her support for criminalisation of drug users on Twitter. She then displayed gross misunderstanding of the science behind the drugs debate by responding to one follower that illegal drugs were more harmful than alcohol in moderation, though this is only true for specific drugs. For upstanding citizens like her, it is a mere misdemeanour, but woe betide those not in the nouveau aristocracy.
Unsurprisingly, she’s not the only one to have been in this position. When Ann Widdecombe announced a zero-tolerance policy for cannabis in 2000, eight Shadow Cabinet members admitted they had partaken. Former Home Secretary Charles Clarke presided over the system, despite a similar admittance, and Prime Ministers Blair and Cameron have suspiciously refused to comment on allegations of past drug-taking.
For English law to have any credibility, it must apply equally to all. Out of respect for all those currently behind bars, every MP for whom there exists evidence of former possession should be interviewed under caution to find the real villains – those involved in the destructive and bloody drugs trade. Mensch should at the very least amend her support for criminalisation.
The most important measure to introduce, however, is for every MP to state under legal oath any crime they have committed that carries severe penalties. This would not only tell us how fit our law-makers are to make judgements which can devastate the lives of those they claim to represent; it would also inspire real debate as to which offences it is indeed right to criminalise. Yes, none of us are without sin, each of us breaking one of the innumerable trivial offences on the British statute book as often as we clean out teeth. But, unlike MPs, who make the law, we do not cast stones at one another for it. What better way to protect the freedom of the powerless by tying it to the opportunities of the powerful?
August 8th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
“Prime Ministers Blair and Cameron have suspiciously refused to comment on allegations of past drug-taking”
…as has Deputy Prime Minister Clegg, to be fair.
“Out of respect for all those currently behind bars, every MP for whom there exists evidence of former possession should be interviewed under caution…”
This would be pointlessly heavy-handed and a complete waste of police time. I agree that MPs should be treated the same as everybody else, but the police do not interview every person who admits once having used an illegal drug. If they did, we’d need to draft the army in to keep order while the police all sat in offices interviewing a significant proportion of the population.
Of course the police could especially target MPs to make an example, but that would be arbitrary and would reinforce the idea (too often seen in the case of adultary or generally louche lifestyles) that MPs should be better than normal people.
What I think you are getting at here is that we need a real debate about the drug laws. I agree with that, but I suspect that your approach – “Out of respect for all those currently behind bars, every MP for whom there exists evidence of former possession should be interviewed under caution” – would be counter-productive. Once every MP had to confess any sin, it would be very difficult for the House to debate the matter, while those who were “clean” would seize the moral high-ground.
Finally, it would discourage many people from becoming MPs. The last thing we want is a House full of saints, but only the squeeky-clean would stand for parliament if they knew that their secrets would be outed. Just look at the trouble that David Laws got into for keeping is sexuality a secret – and that’s not even illegal!
August 19th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
I have some sympathy for the points you make. However, my suggestions of being interviewed under caution and admitting past offences which the laws sees as severe would bring home to MPs the excessiveness of certain laws.
If they didn’t want to admit to having committed such acts, they would have to remove the potential for imprisonment from the statutes before the next general election.
Things like drugs possession and probably other offences like aggravated trespass would quickly be changed to have less severe penalties. This would leave serious crimes, which would probably include fraud or perjury to which many of our representatives have found themselves in prison for.
MPs who have committed an imprisonable offence at some point would still be allowed to stand but the level of transparency to which constituents deserve would be achieved. It would also stir genuine debate as the mass public declaration event would likely receive a great deal of media attention.
Those with something to hide should put public service before their reputation and if they are not willing to, they are not deserving of public office. There’s a good chance they will be caught out by the press at some point if they are a hard-working MP like Mensch seems to be. At least putting everything on the record means they can focus on their work, rather than be distracted by having to defend their reputation from the press while in office.
September 6th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
Astonishingly smart thanks, I do believe your audience might terribly well need a sensible deal additional stories like this carry on the superb onerous work.
September 8th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
I’m glad you like the idea, Renee. Thanks for the kind words.