Marksman of the Day

A Texas man has become a hero after he took it upon himself to shoot and kill two burglars who had broken into his neighbour's house.

Joe Horn called the police to report the burglary and then stepped outside and shot the burglars dead as they left the neighbour's house.

A recording of the call suggests Mr Horn, 61, was itching to kill the two burglars.

"Don't go outside the house," the 911 operator pleaded.

"You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don't care what you think."

"You want to make a bet?" Horn answered.

"I'm going to kill them."

Admirers, including several of his neighbours, say Mr Horn is a hero for killing the burglars, protecting his neighbourhood and sending a message to would-be criminals. Critics call him a loose cannon. His attorney says Mr Horn just feared for his life.

[...]

Horn was home in Pasadena, about 15 miles southeast of Houston, on Nov 14 when he heard glass breaking, said his attorney, Tom Lambright.

He looked out the window and saw 38-year-old Miguel Antonio DeJesus and 30-year-old Diego Ortiz using a crowbar to break out the rest of the glass.

He grabbed a 12-gauge shotgun and called 911, the police emergency number, Lambright said. "Uh, I've got a shotgun," he told the dispatcher.

"Uh, do you want me to stop them?"

"Nope, don't do that," the dispatcher responded.

"Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"

Horn and the dispatcher spoke for several minutes, during which Mr Horn pleaded with the dispatcher to send someone to catch the men and vowed not to let them escape.

Over and over, the dispatcher told him to stay inside.

Horn repeatedly said he couldn't.

When the men crawled back out the window carrying a bag, Mr Horn began to sound increasingly frantic.

"Well, here it goes, buddy," Mr Horn said as a shell clicked into the chamber.

"You hear the shotgun clicking, and I'm going."

A few seconds passed.

"Move," Horn can be heard saying on the tape. "You're dead."

Boom.

Click.

Boom.

Click.

Boom.

Mr Horn redialed 911 and told the dispatcher what he'd done. "I had no choice," he said, his voice shaking. "They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice. Get somebody over here quick."

Mr Lambright said Mr Horn had intended to take a look around when he left his house and instead came face to face with the burglars, standing 10 to 12 feet from him in his yard.

Mr Horn is heavyset and middle-aged and would have been no match in a physical confrontation with the two men, who were young and strong, Lambright said.

So when one or both of them "made lunging movements," Mr Horn fired in self-defence, he said.

Family members of the two shooting victims have made few public statements.

Diamond Morgan, Ortiz's widow, who has an 8-month-old son with him, told Houston television station KTRK that she was stunned by Horn's statements on the 911 tape.

"It's horrible," she said. "He was so eager, so eager to shoot."

Yes, and your husband was clearly rather eager to help himself to other people's property. Had he been able to refrain from doing so, he would still be alive today. As it is, I for one won't be shedding any tears for him.

Update: They certainly know how to deal with burglars in Texas: here's another case of a Texan property owner shooting a thief dead, on Thursday afternoon local time.

What would Elizabeth Fry do?

An inmate has failed to use human rights legislation to force a prison to charge him less for phone calls.

Richard Davison, serving 12 years for drugs offences at HMP Elmley, in Kent, wanted the High Court to back his bid.

But Mr Justice Mitting ruled Davison's right to family and private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been infringed.

The fact that prisoners received visits and letters demonstrated their rights were protected, said the judge.

Davison, who is not due for release from the jail until September 2009, had applied for permission to challenge a Prison Service refusal in January to attempt to renegotiate its BT contract, which runs until 2011.

Davison's lawyers had argued that the price of calling his girlfriend in Essex, or family members in Yorkshire, was unfairly higher from jail phones than from public booths.

They said prisoners currently pay 10p for the first 55 seconds of local or national calls to landlines, then 1p per every 5.5 seconds.

The cost of calls from BT public payphones is 40p for the first 20 minutes followed by 10p for each subsequent 10 minutes.

You get 20 minutes for 40p? What public payphones are these? And where can I find one? All the ones I find seem to give rather less value for money than the prison ones.

Nonetheless, my heart really does bleed for poor Mr Davison, and all his fellow criminals victims of bourgeois oppression. It is simply intolerable that he and other inmates should have to pay fully 10p per minute to use the telephone, and, being the great philanthropist that I am, I have devised a way of sparing all prisoners the great burden of the costs associated with the use of telephones: take away the phones! Do that, and never again will any prisoner have to endure the humiliating violation of their human rights that paying for their calls undoubtedly is. So take away the prisoners' payphones: their human rights demand nothing less!

Paedophile has sentenced increased

Back in August I wrote about Michael Porter, the man who, after pleading guilty to twenty-five counts of indecent assault and gross indecency, was sentenced to just three years of community rehabilitation.

Well, I am now pleased to be able to report that, after the case was referred to the Court of Appeal by the Attorney-General, the sentence was increased to an eighteen-month prison term. Still not very much for a man who committed crimes against numerous victims, one only eighteen months old, over a period of fourteen years, but at least it's a slight improvement.

For a change: a nice news story

In a comment on my post about Stephen Gordon, who carried out a vicious assault on a 96 year-old war veteran, and got off with a three year supervision order, Daphne wrote the following:

FR, you have the absolutely worst stories anywhere on the blogosphere.

I need to go take my Prozac after reading you!

So here, for Daphne, and also for any readers who may feel, as I sometimes do, that this country is definitely doomed, is a story of the kind that makes one proud to be British:

He was carrying a gun with intent to rob. She was behind the till at a Tesco petrol station.

With the odds so heavily in his favour the gunman must have thought the next few seconds would be a breeze. He had not, however, allowed for the formidable Linda Faulkner.

Instead of surrendering the £15 cash from her till, the 51-year-old turned to the raider and told him she was too busy to deal with him.

"I just got on with it," she said. "British people don't stop work just because someone is trying to bully us with guns."

Yesterday David Collinson, 42, was beginning a seven-year jail sentence after he was convicted of robbery at Gloucester Crown Court.

Judge Martin Picton paid tribute to Miss Faulkner with a £200 court award and told her she had shown ' remarkable courage' in standing up to the armed raider.

Exactly. I am also pleased to note that Collinson got a pretty decent sentence, even bearing in mind that he may only serve half of it. Certainly a lot more reasonable than that given to Stephen Gordon. All in all a happy ending all round, except for the bad guy.

Now, if only our politicians could learn to stand up to the Islamofascists, the EU, and the other scum who threaten our country, in the same way that Linda Faulkner stood up to this criminal thug, then we might be in business!

Wanted: Lynch Mob

A paranoid schizophrenic who punched a 96-year-old war veteran in the face, leaving him blind in one eye, walked free from court yesterday after a judge ruled that detaining him was not in the best interests of the public.

Stephen Gordon, 44, was captured on CCTV launching a savage, unprovoked attack on defenceless Shah Chaudhury after they bumped into each other on a crowded tram in south London.

Other afternoon passengers, including children, looked on in horror as Gordon called Mr Chaudhury a "b******" and lashed out at the great-grandfather with his clenched right fist.

In a statement to Croydon Crown Court Mr Chaudhury, a British citizen, said he had been standing in the aisle of the tram because nobody would give up their seat for him.

Which is bad enough in itself, although hardly surprising: London is, after all, the world centre for rudeness and discourtesy. On crowded tube trains I have actually seen healthy young people, who would be quite capable of standing for a few minutes, pushing the elderly out of the way in their selfish desperation to get a seat for themselves.

He was gripping a rail with both hands to steady himself when Gordon tried to squeeze by under his arms.

In the process Gordon’s hat fell off, triggering the attack.

“I had done nothing to provoke him,’’ said Mr Chaudhury. “The driver and the other passengers came to my aid and I was taken to hospital.”

At a trial earlier this year Gordon, of Academy Gardens, Croydon, was found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm.

During the trial Gordon claimed that Mr Chaudhury had punched him.

Causing GBH with intent carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The attack was vicious and unprovoked, the victim was about as defenceless as you can get, and has suffered severe adverse consequences as a result of the attack (as well as losing the sight in one eye, he has suffered a general deterioration in his health, and now resides in a care home) and Gordon appears to have been completely unrepentant. In these circumstances, what sentence do you think Gordon got?

He was sentenced yesterday to a three year supervision order which requires him to receive psychiatric treatment.

“At first blush it is not a difficult sentencing exercise, an immediate and significant prison sentence would well be justified,” Judge Kenneth Macrae told the court.

“That said it would do nothing to protect the public in the future and my real concern is the public. It seems to me that the best way of ensuring that he is not a risk, is in relying on various support from psychiatrists and probation officers.”

I would suggest that Gordon would be still less of a threat to the public, were he to reside behind the sturdy walls of one of Her Majesty's prisons, while receiving "support from psychiatrists". Judge Macrae also seems to have completely rejected any notion that Gordon should actually be punished for his behaviour, or that the sentence given should aim to deter anyone else from pursuing a similar course of conduct. Indeed, it would rather appear that Gordon has got off almost scot-free. What does that tell us about the extent to which the criminal has become favoured over the victim in the British criminal justice system?

Personally, I would rather like to see Gordon strung-up from a lamppost. And, I can't say that I'd be all that upset to see Judge Macrae swinging alongside him...

Ah diddums!

Convicted criminals working in the community are to be barred from wearing fluorescent jackets because their feelings might be hurt if passers-by hurl abuse, it emerged last night.

Government officials are worried about the health and safety of burglars and thugs if they can be identified as they carry out their punishments.

In a spectacular U-turn, probation staff have been told to stop putting up signs saying street work is being carried out by convicts - or forcing them to wear bright yellow jackets branded 'Community Payback'.

Instead, a small plaque will be erected long after the yobs have gone, to make sure their delicate sensibilities are not put at risk.

So, I guess my oft-stated proposals for the reintroduction of the stocks and the pillory would not find favour with the current government?

It's a pity that the government has backed down over this. Ultimately, there are two primary aspects to public punishments such as this. The first is that it allows the public to see justice being done. This benefit will be largely lost thanks to these proposals. After all, while some people may see a sign saying that criminals have been carrying out a community sentence in the vicinity, this is hardly the same as actually seeing the punishment in action - really it is little different from reading about it in a newspaper. And the only people who will see the punishment in action, will be unaware that it is, in fact, a punishment. All that they will see will be a group of men working.
The second aspect to such punishment is the element of public humiliation that it inflicts upon the criminal. I believe that the humiliation a criminal can experience from being forced to do (ideally) demeaning work can serve as a strong deterrent against repeating his crime. This is particularly so for the kind of petty thug who derives enjoyment from low-level harassment of the law-abiding, and who fixates over "respect". Forcing a criminal to wear a uniform that distinguishes him from ordinary, law-abiding, workmen, and allowing the public to vent their anger upon him, is a significant part of the humiliation, and of the consequent deterrent effect. The basic part of the humiliation - being required to do demeaning work - will remain, but the parts that render the humiliation truly public, and thereby instill a sense of shame in the criminal, will be lost thanks to the government's latest surrender.

Good on Texas

Yesterday, with its unlimited desire to amalgamate power to itself apparently unsated by merely removing the sovereign status of twenty-seven nation states, the EU took it upon itself to begin interfering in the internal affairs of the USA, and, particularly, of the State of Texas. Specifically, as Texas prepares to execute its 400th murderer since 1976, the EU issued a declaration calling on the governor of the state, Rick Perry, to introduce a moratorium on the application of the death penalty. According to the EU "elimination of the death penalty is fundamental to the protection of human dignity, and to the progressive development of human rights".

Astonishingly, the governor of Texas did not take particularly kindly to this act of interference, and, in the politest of terms, invited them to take their declaration, and forcibly insert it into that orifice from which springs the vast bulk of EU legislation. As the governor's spokesman said:

Texans long ago decided the death penalty is a just and appropriate punishment for the most horrible crimes committed against our citizens.

While we respect our friends in Europe...Texans are doing just fine governing Texas.

Exactly. And, in my opinion, our own dear British politicians should be telling the EU exactly the same thing.

Texas, and particularly its justice system, is very successful at making European liberals really, really angry. They seem genuinely unable to cope with the idea that in at least one part of the Western world, the worst criminals are still getting the punishment they richly deserve. Far better, in their opinion, would be the system that prevails in Britain, whereby murderers get a sentence of "life imprisonment" which, in practice, means a jail term of something in the region of ten to fifteen years.

Personally, though, I rejoice in the fact that Texas, despite the anguished squeals of foreign and domestic liberals alike, continues to execute these scum by the cartload. Long may she continue to do so! And hopefully, we'll see the restoration of capital punishment in Britain too, one of these days...

Criminal objects to looking like a criminal

A judge at Gloucester Crown Court has altered a convicted criminal's sentence, removing a requirement that he wear an electronic tag, and substituting a requirement that he carry out thirty hours unpaid work. Why did he do this? Well, because the criminal asked him to.

To be precise, Lewis Beer, who in April pleaded guilty to carrying out an assault at a nightclub in Cheltenham, asked that he be spared tagging, on the grounds that wearing the tag "made him look like a criminal", and that he was, as a result of this, finding it hard to gain employment as a gym instructor.

Well, I have news for you, Lewis: you are a criminal! That's kind of what having convictions for ABH and common assault means. And I'm afraid that the fact that people will now regard you with distaste is entirely your own fault. Perhaps you should have thought about that before you attacked someone.

I am also somewhat surprised to see the judge apparently assisting a criminal in covering up his crime. Presumably any employers he may go to for a job will be able to find out about his conviction, even without the tag. But people who he might be instructing in the gym, should anyone give him a job, would only be alerted to this fact by the tag. Understandably, they might not be overly keen on the idea of having a gym instructor with a recent conviction for violence. Now that the tag has gone, however, they just won't know, and they won't, therefore, have the chance to object.
There must also have been some reason why Beer was required to wear the tag in the first place. If unpaid work was the most appropriate sentence, why wasn't he given that right away? The reasons that led to him being tagged have apparently been disregarded in this decision.

There are, of course, circumstances where a sentence can reasonably be altered. But I really don't see that sparing a criminal from the social stigma that attaches to being a criminal is among them. And, as I said, if I were going to be in close proximity to a man with two assault convictions, I'd want to know about it. Wouldn't you?

Nonces Czech-Mated

I have long believed that castration is an appropriate method of dealing with at least some sex offenders (by which I mean, the ones that we don't actually execute). So I was pleased to read that in the Czech Republic sex offenders are often sentenced to both chemical and surgical (i.e. real, physical) castration. It is wonderful to know that at least some European nations continue to apply proper punishment to paedophiles, rapists, and other related scum.
If only we had something similar here. Sadly, however, the sentences that some of our judges give out give me the impression that they've actually had the operation themselves.

Of course, the liberals are none too happy to see their beloved criminal perverts suffering. The Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture has raised the objection that some of those who were physically castrated did not give full and free consent, because they were told that if they did not so consent, they would face indefinite detention in a psychiatric institution.

Now, in my opinion, the Czechs are being rather soft in allowing these perverts (who, incidentally, need to have actually killed someone before they can be physically castrated) a choice. Rather, I believe that the only choice should be for the judge, and that should be, do you execute, or do you just physically castrate him? When you commit offences, you lose the right to object or consent to what is done to you in condign punishment for those offences.
But, notwithstanding my view that the Czechs are being a bit soft, I still envy them their way of dealing with these scum, and for the people at the Committee for the Prevention of Torture to kick up a fuss about this is disgusting. If they are really serious about stopping torture, perhaps they should take a look at saving more innocent people from sex offenders, rather than looking after the rights of these perverts. Really, words are inadequate to express my contempt for anyone who wastes their time or that of others complaining about anything that is done to a rapist or child abuser. Such vermin are just not worthy of our concern.

Update: On a related note, The Telegraph has a story about Jonathan King, one child abuser who definitely merits the application of the Czech method. Apparently, in his latest display of utter moral bankruptcy, King has released a music video on Youtube, praising Harold Shipman. At the time of writing, it's still up there, but I think I shall pass on linking to it myself.

A Problem Child

A 11-year-old boy who has admitted carrying out 26 offences in 13 weeks near his Bristol home has been put under curfew and electronically tagged.

Police had asked a court to name him, but magistrates rejected the request.

On Wednesday the boy, who has claimed to be "untouchable", admitted crimes including burglary, theft and indecent exposure at Bristol Youth Court.

He was also warned that the courts could apply for permission to lock him up before his 12th birthday in March.

The boy, who lives in the north of the city, pleaded guilty to seven offences and asked for 19 more to be taken into consideration.

He was also made the subject of a 36-month supervision order.

Speaking after the hearing, Det Insp Guy Worrall said: "Because of his age, the courts are limited in their powers to deal with this boy, who commits crime across two police districts.

"He is not concerned about being disturbed inside someone's home and continues to commit crime while on bail.

"Officers continue to arrest him, but our advice to the public living in South Gloucestershire and Bristol is to make sure doors and windows of their homes and outbuildings are secured and valuables locked away."

Even his own solicitor admitted she had no "useful suggestions" for how to deal with him after previous community orders had failed.

In this case, the police and the solicitor genuinely cannot be blamed for their lack of ideas. It is very difficult to incarcerate a child under the age of 12: generally it can only be done where the little thug has committed an offence that carries a sentence of at least 14 years' imprisonment. As this is, presumably, not the case here, there really isn't a lot that can be done.

Which, of course, is a problem in itself. In my opinion, with children like this, you need to be prepared to step in early, and give them a good, sharp, and prolonged shock. He's already committing two crimes a week: imagine what he might be doing in six or seven years. It's odds on he'll break the curfew, and a tag won't physically stop him doing anything. Rather, what children like this need is boot camp. This boy needs to be taken away from his family, away from all those who might encourage him to offend, and, indeed, away from any possibility of offending, for at least a year. If nothing else, then this would mean that he would be unable to plague the law-abiding public while he was incarcerated. But, more importantly, only the martial discipline of a boot camp (allied with education, and, perhaps, rehabilitative treatment) has any hope of turning a child like this into anything other than a young hooligan.

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Justice is Injustice?

The latest installment in the story of the government's war on prison numbers comes courtesy of the Telegraph:

Thousands more convicts are to spend less time in jail as a result of law and order measures published by the Government yesterday.

A new Criminal Justice Bill will limit prison terms faced by released offenders who breach the condition of their licences.

They will serve a maximum sentence of 28 days, instead of being sent back to jail for the duration of their term.

Putting these former prisoners back in jail has helped to push the prison population to record levels.

Greater use of cautions and ending suspended sentences in magistrates' courts will also reduce prisoner numbers.

The Ministry of Justice revealed that the Bill would free up 1,380 prison places at any one time.

This Orwellian-sounding ministry appears to believe that this is a good thing. However I would remind readers that each of those prison places is currently occupied by a criminal, and, moreover, by a criminal who has shown a sufficient continued disregard for the law on being granted early release from prison, that they have been deemed worthy of reincarceration. So, what the Ministry of Justice is really trumpeting, is that 1,380 extra thugs and other assorted lowlife will be loose on our streets, who are presently locked away where they can do no harm.

War is peace, indeed.

Tough on crime?

The Observer gives the latest update on the long-running saga of the government's battle against prison "overcrowding":

The Government will this week spark a new war with the judiciary by stripping England and Wales's 30,000 magistrates of powers to hand out suspended jail terms, in a fresh bid to ease the prisons crisis.

The move is likely to prompt an angry reaction from magistrates who fiercely guard their sentencing powers.

It will also be interpreted as a climbdown by the government which introduced suspended sentence orders (SSOs) for summary offences - 'minor' crimes, such as common assault or driving while disqualified, which are heard in the magistrates' court - only two years ago. Under the order an offender receives a custodial punishment if they commit a further crime while the suspended sentence is running.

But the government has been alarmed by the number of times magistrates have used suspended sentences and by how many have been converted into custodial sentences for reoffenders.

We really do seem to be living in a world that has gone totally mad. How else do we describe a society where the government - which is supposed to exist for the protection of the populace - will use any trick in the book to try and keep criminals out of prison, and on the streets?

My own views on claims that prisons are overcrowded have been set out here before: essentially, I will not accept that prisons are full up until there is no longer one inch of floor space in one cell in the country which does not have a convict lying, sitting, or standing on it. And I also feel that a liberal application of the noose would serve the purpose of reducing the prison population rather well.

Somewhat ironically, however, the government's latest attempt to reduce the prison population may well have the effect of increasing it, at least according to Harry Fletcher, of the National Association of Probation Officers, who "warns" (because it is something we all fear) that magistrates could use immediate custodial sentences, if they are prevented from using suspended ones. Whether this will actually turn out to be the case is unclear (personally, from my limited experience of seeing magistrates in action, I'm surprised to learn that they ever send anyone to prison), but it is a pleasant thought.

Criminal "justice": an expert speaks

I think that we have a new frontrunner in the crowded race for the honour of being the most idiotic criminal "justice" expert around. Her name is Mitch Egan, she earns £100,000 a year as a "Regional Offenders Manager" (whatever that is), and she thinks that prison is bad:

She claimed the rising prison population had added to a feeling of insecurity among the public -because people feared criminals who were locked up out of sight.

"For me, prison is an inappropriate punishment for all but the most actively dangerous of offenders, and using incarceration at the current rates actively contributes to the fear of crime," she said.

There you go. Now you and I, being the ignorant proles that we are, may exist under the sad delusion that we would feel happier if people who want to mug us, break into our houses, or steal our cars were placed somewhere where they were unable to do this. But, we are clearly wrong. Rather, we would be much more content if these people were walking freely in our streets.

Miss Egan called for a full debate on imprisonment: "We sanitise our society by displacing justice from communities affected by crime.

"Dislocating punishment from the community, allowing criminal justice to become, and to feel that it becomes, active and impersonal... this makes us all more fearful."

She accused the public of being "lazy" by leaving public protection to the police, courts and prisons, declaring: "Society asks far too much of the criminal justice system."

By "asks far too much", I assume she means "asks that it should work". And I can't see how it's the fault of the public if they leave public protection to the police and courts. What else are they expected to do? If you yourself take action against crime, you can easily end up being locked up.

However, as regards the stuff about bringing criminal justice back to the community: I'm all for that. As I've remarked before, sticking gang members and similar thugs in the stocks or the pillories would have a highly beneficial effect all round. But I somehow doubt that Miss Egan wants that kind of thing.

All told, I find it difficult to see how Miss Egan's comments amount to anything more than post-modern leftist rhetoric, using a lot of buzz words, and signifying absolutely nothing. It has been demonstrated, that, in most cases, prison works. This being so, let's have more of it, not less. And if they run out of beds, then some prisoners will just have to sleep on the floor.

Home Office in "Prison Works" Shock!

Lord "Fatty" Falconer, the Lord Chancellor and laughably-styled "Secretary of State for Justice", has made a number of appearances on this blog, usually in relation to his apparent belief that justice is best served by releasing more and more criminals onto the streets. Examples can be found here and here.

Falconer is not the only member of the government at fault in this, although with his peculiarly porcine features and insufferable air of smugness he does represent a particularly entertaining target. John Reid and Tony Blair have also made public statements in favour of more and earlier releases. So too has Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice.

Now, however, it has been revealed that a Home Office report has said what most people already knew: "Prison works":

Figures showed that 70 per cent of convicts jailed for under 12 months re-offended within two years, compared with 49 per cent of those sentenced to between one and four years and 36 per cent of those serving at least four years.

Researchers found that men and women released from prison within a year had on average 13 previous convictions – suggesting shorter jail sentences were failing as a deterrent.

Because these offenders were often hooked on drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine they repeatedly resorted to crime to fund their habits.

The report said prisoners released from longer sentences were less likely to re- offend because they were older, had time to be rehabilitated and had been convicted of more serious "one-off" offences.

The study, compiled in 2005 and 2006, looked at the reoffending rates of 45,100 criminals who walked free in 2003 – 15,300 from prison sentences and 29,800 who were given non-custodial sentences.

It found that criminals were more likely to re-offend if instead of prison they were given a community rehabilitation order or one of the Government’s flagship drug testing and treatment orders, which meant staying strictly drugs free.

However, community punishment orders – where an offender is, for instance, forced to sweep the streets – were more successful than prison in tackling reoffending.

Actually, I wouldn't be averse to seeing more such punishments, for minor first-time offenders. However, they certainly aren't a universal panacea.

Neither is prison. But it certainly goes a lot further than most non-custodial sentences. And, we must remember, that aside from the need to deter there is also a need to punish. A rehabilitation order does not achieve real and significant punishment, prison does. And prison would work still better in terms of both punishment and deterrence if the criminals in there were actually treated as if they were there to be punished. At present, too many are not so treated.

My kind of judge

Shoppers entering a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Alabama got a reminder not to try anything funny: Two shoplifters stood outside with signs reading "I am a thief, I stole from Wal-Mart."

Attalla City Judge Kenneth Robertson Jr. ordered the two people to wear the signs for four hours each during two successive Saturdays.

"The only comments we've heard so far have been positive," said store manager Neil Hawkins. "Most of them thought it was a good thing."

One of the shoplifters, Lisa King Fithian, 46, wore the sign from 11am to 3pm to avoid a 60-day jail sentence. Another convicted shoplifter was at the store from 3pm to 7pm.

Hats off to Judge Robertson for this excellent idea. Of course, in Britain it would probably be considered a violation of the criminals' "human rights".

This is the kind of "community sentence" that I would really like to see more of in this country. Yes, it's humiliating for the criminal. I think that that is rather the point. The element of public humiliation for the criminal is likely to be a strong deterrent against further wrongdoing. In addition, whereas in the case of a prison sentence the criminal's punishment (such as it is) is something that takes place behind closed doors, a punishment like this is carried out in public, thereby enabling the public to witness justice being done.

Personally, I would like to see the return of those two much-lamented (by me at least) British institutions, the stocks and the pillories. I particularly envisage such punishments being handed out, possibly in conjunction with a prison sentence, to the low-level gang members and petty thugs who terrorise communities all over the country. Such people set great store by "respect": they need to feel big and powerful, and to make others see them as such. Putting them in the pillories for a few hours on a Saturday afternoon would utterly humiliate them, and in so doing go some way towards both undermining their own self-respect, and reducing the fear with which they are regarded by law-abiding people.