MICHAEL Dosunmu – a 15-year-old church-going schoolboy – was sound asleep in a bedroom at his family home in Peckham when two young men he had almost certainly never met burst in, aimed a submachine gun at his heart, and pulled the trigger.
Mohammed Sannoh and Abdi Omar Noor have today been found guilty of this February 2007 murder, even though they denied the charges. Just 19 and 22 respectively, they will get life sentences, and that decision will enjoy widespread support.
The Old Bailey heard that the two men had mistaken Michael for his older brother Hakeem, whom they had decided to execute in revenge for a gang-related knife killing three days earlier. But their intended target was out at a club that night, dealing drugs. So the poor little kid got wasted instead, entirely by mistake. Just one of those things, right?
The Daily Telegraph reports:
The court heard that when Sannoh was arrested he told officers: "I don't care about the murder. **** the murder. I don't care what happened to that boy."
Noor fled to Ipswich before drunkenly confessing to a fellow Somalian, who said he laughed when he saw a report of the killing on the BBC News and said "my boy did that".
This was a dreadful crime by any standards, an act of wicked criminality so shocking that it automatically invites a reactionary response. That makes it exactly the kind of case the left finds difficult to address within its traditional frame of reference.
Peckham is one of the most deprived areas in all of Britain. Social exclusion – to use the currently fashionable euphemism – and racism both blight the area. But collectively they constitute neither sufficient explanation nor sufficient exculpation.
Of course the left is correct to call for a determined assault on inequality, job insecurity, low pay, bad housing and discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, rather than further erosion of civil liberties. Of course money needs to be spent on education, health and drug rehabilitation rather than lining the pockets of private prison contractors.
But at the same time, it is important to take on board that Sannoh and Noor did have other options than to do what they did. No social factors predetermine the actions of individuals to that extent.
When teenagers are routinely slain in the name of ‘respect’, it is impossible lightly to dismiss aspects of the conservative critique, which holds that the problem of black-on-black violence is to a significant degree culturally generated.
But if the right’s diagnosis is partially correct, the wrong prescription follows. Banging up Sannoh and Noor for a long, long time isn’t going to solve anything either. Maybe they are capable of rehabilitation, maybe not. If they really are mindless irredeemable thugs - and they do sound like nasty pieces of work - the problem is simply warehoused.
Meanwhile, even as the thoughtful left and the thoughtful right both struggle to develop adequate analysis and to come up with workable solutions, ordinary working class people in ordinary working class areas become ever more insistent that politicians ‘get tough on law and order’.
That is unsurprising, given that they are the people most directly impacted by the kind of crimes that somehow never seem to happen in Richmond or Chelsea.
The existence of such sentiment on a mass scale leaves the law and order agenda open to manipulation by authoritarian politicians. New Labour has sought to erode the right to trial by jury, allow hearsay evidence, and scrap the double jeopardy rule. Hang‘em and flog ‘em Tories can only but approve.
What, you don’t want to get tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime? Are you a social worker or something? Its 1960s-style middle-class bleeding heart liberal wusses like you that let down hard-working families that play by the rules.
It is vital that Britain avoids the purchase of a one-way ticket to Blunkettville via Michael Howard Junction. But if we are to succeed in not going there, we had better come up with some ideas that can persuade the electorate otherwise.
Posted at 14:09, 17 June 2008
Comments (26)
Well, lets talk root causes - the root cause of crime is free enterprise - those two entrepreneurs that killed the kid were looking after their business interests - that's what respect boils down to.
They don't *have* to go into criminality, but the market entry costs are low, the rewards relatively good and overall worth a look...
If these gangs started putting out prospectuses they'd be lapped up.
The Nazis' appeal in Germany was in part based on a promise to get tough on law and order. There was a surge in the crime rate under the Depression, as well a perception (in fact false but fostered by right-wing newspapers) that the Weimar authorities were "soft on crime". According to the late historian Richard Grunberger, the crime rate did actually fall under the Nazis, for two reasons - draconian penalties and the opportunity to engage in Nazi criminality, which was of course not punished, at least until after the war.
The crime rate rose during wartime because of social dislocation, though the Nazis stepped up the number of executions and increasingly did not bother with even unfair trials, for example, by 1944 people in Vienna found to have been looting after a bombing raid were simply put up against the nearest wall and shot.
Dave
You are correct. People who commit violent crime, especially with guns and knives should go to prison. i appluud Tommy Sheridan for having broken the tabboo on the left when he called for compulsory prison for knife carrying.
The problem is, that we have both a media feeding frenzy every time there is a juicy crime, that feeds into an exagerated fear of crime; and also a political culture that is escalating prison numbers, in the misguided beleif that prison works.
More than 60% of those sent to prison are for less than six months, which is too short a time for any rehabilitatioon, therapy or addressing underlying problems. Nearly all of these people would be better off with a non-custodial sentence, which would free up a lot of resources for crime prevention.
The fact is that the social profile of prisoners is clearly defined, high levels of drug dependency, mental distress, homelessness, child abuse. We know what the social problems are that lead to crime, and we pretty much know which young people are at risk of becoming criminals.
So why not put our resources into helping them before they go off the rails, instead of afterwards?
The problem is, Dave, that the genie is out of the bottle and it's going to be impossible to get it back in, at least in the medium-term and short of a social revolution. I am interested to see that these low-lifes were able to obtain a sub-machine gun. Do they sell them at Asda's nowadays?
Perhaps someone can also look into the availability
of sub-machine guns in Peckham and other districts.
When I've broached the subject I got the impression those with authority did not want to talk about it,
let alone do anything about it.
But then why should they worry?
I don't agree with you that their actions were not determined by social factors.
Virtually all contemporary research into the relationship between society and upbringing proves a direct link between poverty and opportunity.
In fact the DFES even have a chart where there predict the proportion of children of different ages according to social factors who will end up in jail. (Tip: don't be poor, a boy, born in August, with parents with English as a second language.)
I didn't say social factors didn't play a role, Bill. I said they are not *determinant*. Which they are not. Since when did Marxists argue that human beings do not have a wide degree of free agency?
I agree with Dave again.
The social factors behind crime do give a tremendous insight to which young people are at risk of being perpetrators or victims of crime(they can be both of course), but the criminal justice system can play a part in guiding people to make choices away from crime.
In truth, the system in Egland and wales is particularly ineffective compared to other European countries, so we shoudl learn from paces like NOrway and Finland which have lower crime rates and dramatically lower reates of incarceration.
But the Norwegian criminologist Christie, who is largely responsible for the liberal and efffective Norwegian approach is himslf scathing of the leftist position that nothing needs to be done about criminals in the here and now.
Another young lad was randomly beaten almost to death by a 23 year-old up here on Teesside over the weekend, and it's doubtful whether he'll pull through. Not only does it make me sad, but it also makes my piss boil. Such violence and disorder is a very real problem and a very real concern for working class people -- how could it not be when this is happening in our communities? -- which is why I agree that it's absolutely vital for the left to have something meaningful and confident to say about it.
For me, the best socialist approach to such matters right now would be to say "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" -- a piece of Blairite genius, if only he'd actually meant it. We have to make the argument that although tougher sentences are sometimes needed, it's never just a matter of tougher sentences. As Ian Loader said to Tony Blair after the above slogan turned out to be an empty promise: "Policing, criminal justice and punishment have an important but ultimately small and peripheral part to play in the production of orderly societies."
See my recent post over at PRT: http://republic-of-teesside.blogspot.com/2008/06/teenage-killers-and-moral-panics.html
> Tip: don't be poor, a boy, born in August, with parents with English as a second language.
And *everyone* in the country who fits this description is unable to stop themselves becoming a gang member?
Sure, social factors make things *more likely*, but the majority of poor and/or black people out there *don't* murder teenagers in their beds.
I honestly think crime/law & order is the single issue where "the left" and the working class they claim to represent diverge furthest in opinion.
I think socialists need to take a twin track approach.
I agree that measures can be put into place now, we can't just say airily that these problems will go away when capitalism is done away with.
These might include legalisation of drugs, with attendant licensed provision and extensive health programmes aimed at getting people off drugs or at least providing them with limited, safe supplies. Mass provision of youth facilities and sporting and cultural events and amenities. A raising of the minimum wage to a minimum living wage and a guaranteed minimum weekly income. An educational system less interested in passing or failing people and more interested in developing and encouraging young people. Simply providing hope for the future by turning the tide in favour of working class people.
We do though need to make the fundamental and critical point that inequality itself breeds crime. Generallly speaking, the greater the levels of inequality in a society, the greater levels of crime will be, particularly brutal crimes such as the one highlighted in Dave's article.
The key word that has been mentioned a couple of times is 'respect'. Michael Wilkinson, an epidemiologist who has done a lot of work examining the impact of inequality, points out that unequal societies can mirror dominance hierarchies in the non-human part of the animal kingdom. Here status is all, and violence is often a means of asserting status above others in the group. Being at the bottom of a dominance hierarchy, in human society as well as in non-human animals, means a shorter life expectancy and poorer health. This is why 'respect' matters. This is why you don't find the sons and daughters of investment bankers shooting young lads.
And actually, I think we can quite easily dismiss the reactionary mumblings about 'black-on-black' violence, which is anyway usually directed at those from afro-caribbean backgrounds. I may be making assumptions here, but the perpetrators names suggest that in this instance this is not the case. Anyhow, why is the term 'white-on-white' violence never used, despite being far more prevalent?
'Respect' as a motive I don't think has any real racial or cultural link. The link is that such crimes are rising in our increasingly unequal society.
I'm inclined to agree with D.B. In conjunction with the usual measures we advocate aimed at the causes of crime we need viable policies on policing, and punishment/rehabilitation. When I was out canvassing one woman raised the issue of crime as she was fed up of drug dealers hanging out outside her house and the police not wanting to know. When I talked to her about our position on the democratic control and accountability of policing it was like pushing at an open door.
We can come up with policies and demands that are neither draconian or reactionary but can strike a chord. So why don't we?
Red Deathly and D.B. have the best points, but far too understated.
It is the amongst the oldest functions of the state to define and enforce the boundaries between Crime and Business. Shaving metal off the edge of coins? A crime for centuries. Selling Tobacco to adults? A business. Selling cannabis to kids? A crime. Al Capone was convicted of fiddling his income tax; he couldn't intimidate witnesses to that one.
Crime is also a set of issues of class and ideology. The only people more likley to be victims of crime than the workers are the non-working poor.
Reactionaries highlight crimes by younger, poorer offenders becasue they don't want to draw attention to career criminals and they want to present crime as a threat to property. The profile of a career criminal is
1) older than mid-20s
2) better off than most people
3) self-employed
What an old friend used to call "lumpen petit-bourgeois". And that is why it is so impoirtant that the Labour government merged Customs and Excise with the Inland Revenue.
I'm always afraid to read the comments under posts like these in case there's some idiot who thinks that easy availability of firearms on UK streets is a good thing because it makes arming the proletariat easier come the big day or something. Phew - there isn't (yet).
Good comments above - and good post Dave.
Who could you possibly mean, Ed?
Strewth
Ed, evening.
The comments calling for compulsory jailing of those carrying knives emanating from socialists are appalling.
Since when do reds support the states's monopoly on arms? Everyone should have the right to carry knives and guns.
Ultra left madness? Not at all.
Who has the weapons at the moment? Social criminals and the state.
It is illegal to carry a knife but does that stop thugs - of course not.
It is doubtless also illegal to use truncheons willy-nilly on protestors but did that stop the cops at the weekend near Whitehall - of course not.
And who might you need the knife or gun for - the thug and maybe one day the state.
Did any of you former Trots (and indeed current ones) ever do any Marxist education classes?
Sheridan always was a rum one - 'I'll name names to the cops'
What's Southpawpunch's solution then? As I said above, I don't think there is a solution, outside of a radical change in social relations. Where can we go from here? Just talking analytically, I think the background of the participants is interesting. The perpentrators came from countries long riven by bitter civil wars (Somalia and Sierra Leone), while the intended victim was a Nigerian who had served in teh British Army in Basra. He had been court martialled for assaulting a fellow soldier and returning to this country had found it had to get a job. He had become involved in armed robbery and gangs. This murder was over an argument over the divvying up of the proceeds of an armed robbery.
I'm a British-Swiss dual national. Most of my rellies in Switzerland keep nasty looking automatic rifles about their house.
So the slogan of 'an armed people' is practicable, even within a bourgeois democracy.
But in the British context? I suspect the results would not be felicitous, to put it mildly.
How do teh Swiss keep from blasting each other to smithereens?
The issue here is having the training and discipline in how to use firearms.
As readers of this blog already know I advocate compulsory national military or community service as is the case in most of Europe where they don't seem to have the same problem with young scallies shooting and knifing each other to bits.
Paddy, do you seriously know anything about people do in these national service schemes. The French one has ended (there's some kind of citizenship inducation now, for a few days), but French blokes of my age went through it. They spent their time doing such character-forming things as painting fences.
I am interested that Noor fled to Ipswich. Peckham was obviously not hard enough for him.
And I suspect the French crime rate, during national service days, and in the banlieues, was similar to that in comparable British places.
If the murderers of Michael Dosunmu couldn't have got guns they would have brought knives, if they couldn't have carried knifes, they would have used hammers.
There is an 'armed people' in Britain now although only very few of them - the state and social criminals (although very few of the latter). And the results are 'not felicitous, to put it mildly.'
As per 'solutions' - I will be writing about Law and Disorder in the next post on my site.
Dave: You should let your Swiss relatives tell you some of their history. Compulsory militia service for males has been around, long before Lenin went to Zurich. It is an important reason why Switzerland avoided invasion.
Crime is low in Switzerland, except for Domestic murders. Think of a woman who hasn't been able to get a violent man out of her life. Would she really want him to have a gun around the house?
Yes, I am very aware of all this, Alan. It is precisely my point. The culture of Zurich is very different from the culture of inner London.
Yes, there are immigrant districts. Yes, there are working class areas; some of my relatives live in social housing. Yes, there was - last time I was over, anyway - a serious and growing smack problem.
But there isn't the concentration of grinding poverty seen in too many parts of the UK. That's probably a large part of the explanation.
Lord. Every time the left discusses crime on this blog it dissolves into drivel. Prison for carrying a knife - have you gone absolutely stark staring mad Andy? Do you have any idea of the knife carrying data? How many prsions do you want to build and lock people in?Christ.
PS I exclude Jim at 19:46 who is on to something.