"The Whole City, is alarm'd and uneasy; Wickedness has got such a Head, and the Robbers and Insolence of the Night are such, that the Citizens are no longer secure within their own Walls, or safe even in passing their Streets, but are robbed, insulted and abused, even at their own Doors... a wave of general criminality has spread over the whole nation..."

Daniel Defoe wrote this in the early eighteenth century in a pamphlet to the mayor of the city. The sentiments stated in here are not unlike the today show editorials of Alan Jones, and the numerous editorials and headlines of daily newspapers. In fact, an in depth study into history shows that crime has always existed, and that the concerns of the community have been similarly wedged in terms of security. But the fact is, crime today is no worse than it ever was two hundred years ago or sixty years ago. However, Defoe's pamphlet to the mayor contain some even more amazing statements that unfortunately say to us "de ja vous" in the current climate.

Allan Silver commenting on the Defoe letter wrote:

"In that period, it was, of course, commonplace also to ascribe the fundamental causes of mass criminality to large-scale immigration"

Following this, is the quote from Defoe's pamphlet:

"In the poorer quarters of our great cities may be found huddled together the Italian bandit and the bloodthirsty Spaniard, the bad man from Sicily, the Hungarian (go Laszlo!), the Croatian and the Pole, the Chinaman and the Negro, the cockney Englishman, the Russian and the Jew, with all the centuries of hereditary hate back of them. They continually cross each others' path. It is no wonder that altercations occur and blood is shed..."

Unfortunately, Silver was wrong when he assumed that this laying of blame still doesn't occur. I have quoted the Alan Jones' rants on a number of occasions, where he indirectly blames Asians as a mass for crimes, and makes direct inferences as to what should be done to immigration figures due to crime. Pauline Hanson too, sounds peculiarly like Defoe when she talks about the nation fragmenting into cultural blocks (ie. a sort of ethnic war situation played out in the suburbs of Sydney). One can go visit her web site (link to weird sites) to see what I mean. There are very few places in Sydney where this scenario could in fact eventuate, let alone the widespread carnage that One Nation thinks "multiculturalism" will incur on Australians should the policy continue.

Of course, in the early eighteenth century, there was no police force. When the police force had been introduced, the streets of London became much safer, especially vis a vis riots. The riots of course, were a big concern to landed classes, obviously due to the ongoings in continental Europe at the time. Gradually though, police powers were increased, and accountability of the police service has often been difficult to ascribe. Sometimes Governments haven't been able to deal with them. In Australia's early years of colonisations, magistrates excercised the power over the police forces. The problem was that this system resulted in individual towns having different sets of law enforcement and inter jurisdictional problems were as wide spread as in the US. Charles Cowper founded the NSW police force in 1862. Obviously a difficult thing to do, since the magistrates knew they would lose much of their power to the Government. This early history makes us see why even today, politicians may find it hard to control the police service. When secret files are ordered destroyed by Govts (like special branch files), the police forces often do not follow the order. One wonders what sort of police servaillance work goes on without the knowledge of the officials we elect to carry out the duties of implementing law and order policy. In many ways, I think of the police going to judges to authorise phone tappings as a semi-colonial style operation. It might be harder for the police to tap the phone of some people if they had to get the permission of a politician to do it, especially since that politician's job is on the line. The police, as we all know have many discretionary powers. They can arrest people for swearing, even on their front lawns. Ironically, swearing is entrenched in the Police Culture. These laws are simply created in aiding the police in finding an avenue for arresting a person if no other reasonable grounds can be found.

The police undoubtedly reduce crime, however, their powers leave them open to claims of corruption, and limit the amount of democracy in a society. However, discretionary police powers, when put into the hands of a responsible police officer, is not as bad as it seems. One must wonder how much responsible use of discretion there is, because until recently, there were hardly any educational requirements for a person to join the force. Many career criminals could have applied (many probably did - see NSW Royal Commission). Putting discretionary powers into the hands of uneducated bigots has resulted in unexplainable biases in crime statistics. Why are Aborigines up to 5 times over represented in custody figures? Police claim not to be racist, but as in the legendary documentary "cop it sweet", those very cops had racist sentiments. If police officers had more training in understanding Aboriginal issues, they may perhaps react differently.

I think that discretionary powers, are not necessarily good things, and leave the issue of law enforcement not into some universal code of practice, but if in the wrong hands, into a personalised exercise of law in pre-conceived notions of criminality. Commissioner Ryan's latest calls for police having discretion to close games' palours, is the latest example of the heavy handed tactics that should never be allowed. I have also commented previously on the inherent undemocratic nature of the PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT (PRA), as well as the problematic nature of the knife searching laws. The parental responsibility act is particularly abhorrent because it is aimed at people under the age of suffrage, hence, not only limiting their rights of free movement in public places, but also any chance to exercise their disapproval in the ballot box*. Furthermore, their only avenue of protest, in marches, are often treated with derision in the media. For example, the recent Anti-Racism rally held by school students across the state. The media focussed on an intelligent group of left-leaning socialist students as "brainwashing" the masses. If anything the current teenager has learned, it is, not to be brainwashed... they are surrounded too much with pop culture images vying for control of their pocket money than to be brainwashed by communists or liberals or the local taxi driver (and anyway, I think people my age and younger are much more cynical about things). The only people brainwashed are those who fell for the "fear of the communists" scare campaign that Menzies and the Liberal party (even when Whitlam was in power) ran (they sort of still go back to it now and again, for the memories... and Pauline did it so well when she attacked our brainwashed youths). Even some in the Labor party fell for the Labor "red" threat (ie. forming the splinter group DLP, which kept Menzies in power). One thinks that media commentators would be more weary about starting up a fear of communists, especially to attack a student protest. I have digressed though.

In conclusion, be very wary of arguments that rights have to be taken away from us so that the "Community as a whole can benefit". Police enforcement can be carried out successfully without a PRA, without the strict knife search laws, and without the power to arrest for indecent language. The government, instead of extending discretionary provisions, should dig deep into its pockets, give the police officers a pay rise for getting uni degrees in criminal law and employ many more police officers. Too much discretion can, in the end, lead to severe lowering of liberties of ethnic groups or a specific mould of people who are picked on by the way they dress or appear.

Daniel Defoe's letter to the mayor of London in the eighteenth century reminds us that we are not experiencing "unprecedented levels of crime". Our murder rate is not high, and the only thing of concern right now is the increasingly growing incidence of robbery. No discretionary powers you give to police will stop that. Extra policing (as well as the legalisation of Heroin), and a more professional police force will cut down property crimes. So, don't fall for the trap govts set so that they can remove your freedoms. If I am 16, am doing nothing wrong, walking with a group of my friends, or hanging around on the street, I should not be stopped by police. Be very wary when the parrot starts talking about "crime waves" and "immigration should be cut to stop these criminals from coming in" - Lessons from history tell us that some of these arguments are timelessly false.

* The constitutional validity of the section which allows police to order any kid home (even if the kids are doing nothing wrong) has yet to be put to the test. Neither has the question of congregating groups been put to the test. A case has not arisen yet, and one hopes that there is a wealthy parent out there willing to challenge the law into the higest court. I wonder how the justices will reconcile Australia's strong democracy with such an obtuse law.

1. Allan Silver, "The Demand for ORder in Civil Society: A Review of Some Themes in the History of Urban Crime, Police and Riot" from D Bordue (ed), The Police : Six Sociological Essays, John Wiley 1967.