Cutting to the heart of the problem
The Drug Problem: part 3 is postponed to a future Monday soon given the need to comment on the topical issue of knife crime.
Hot on the heels of the murder of 16-year-old Ben Kinsella, who appears to have been ambushed and hunted down by a gang in response to his trying to act as a peacemaker when trouble erupted outside a public house, comes the murder of 16-year-old Shakilus Townsend. In that case the victim seems to have been lured by a teenage girl into a planned ambush. They chased him until they caught him. After being beaten with a baseball bat and stabbed four times, he lay bleeding to death asking for his mother and understandably saying he didn't want to die.
Those of you who are familiar with game theory will know that certain programs track behaviour in particular circumstances to see the overall impact which different strategies will produce. I do not believe it is used widely or at all in policing or sentencing work , but it should be.
At the moment strong sentences for the possession of knives are not being handed out. At the same time the sentences on the perpetrators of knife crime seem relatively mild compared to the consequences for the victim. The gang that murdered Shakilus Townsend ran away laughing. On the assumption that they were teenagers, (and are caught and convicted) if they received 35 year terms as a minimum which meant they did not leave prison until middle age they might have rather less to laugh about. However, first they have to be caught. Similarly ferocious and sustained use of stop and search powers seems to be regarded as in some way likely to antagonise communities. So teenagers who are concerned about becoming victims of knife crime will weigh up the prospect of successfully being searched and found in possession of a knife and what might happen to them, against the consequences of finding themselves attacked with a knife and having nothing to defend themselves with. At the moment I would suggest that the balance of the argument is likely to be persuading many teenagers that they should carry a knife rather than not.
Of course the problem with knives is that once they are carried then in anger they may well be used. Young people carrying knives, even for protection against others, being out for the evening and drinking alcohol is an explosive mix. It is a mix which will inevitably lead to death after death after death. However at the moment having regard to the likely sentences and the prospect of being caught, the likely feeling amongst many young people will be that they might as well carry.
In many ways knives more dangerous than guns because it is simply impossible to stop people having access to knives. There is also far less consideration has to go into acquiring a knife. Wandering into virtually any kitchen will do.
The law therefore has to do three things. Firstly in connection with gangs which seek out and kill or maim the sentences need to have a considerable deterrent effect. For the good of the community as a whole that is more important than rehabilitation in those particular cases. Secondly searching for knives should be commonplace. Those who carry knives must see that there is a substantial risk that they will be caught out. Frankly, seeing any young people in a group in a city centre or without more to be sufficient to give cause for a search. It will be an infringement of the right to go about your business, but one which is crucial in the circumstances.
Finally those carrying knives must be dealt with severely. One often have sympathy in individual cases, because it often is for self defence, but the reality is that no one will ever say anything ever different when caught. Sometimes the correct policy decision means that hard choices have to be faced. The epidemic of knife crime must be removed from society at all costs. Otherwise it will simply get worse and worse. Teenagers might in principle be against the use of knives, but that does not mean that there is not a risk that they will carry one for protection anyway.