by CheezePie » Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:16 am
1 in 20 people has been a victim of crime, which means that 19 out of 20 people are criminals. No wonder we need police...
In the olden days, if someone did something wrong, there was nothing you could do except form a mob with your neighbours and hunt them down and kill them. But today, we've got one other option, thanks to Sir Robert Peel, who in 1829 discovered the police here on a spot marked today by a ceremonial wind turbine.
Once the police had been invented, victims of crime knew who to ask for help, because of their special hats designed to be visible at a distance by people being murdered in the London folk.
Police tried to stop crime, but couldn't exist without it. If there was no crime, what would they do? 'Cept spend all day putting addresses on bikes with a hammer. If no one's going to steal those bikes, that is just decorating.
Of course, there's no point fighting crime, if you don't know what crime is. That's where rules come in. But what is "rules"?
A "rules" is basically a collection of laws. The first example being the Ten Commandments, which were left on a hill by God. Many of those laws - killing, gravity, and the one about not interfering with oxes - are still used today. Even though God's dead.
So, who decides what's right and what's not right? And works out what the punishment should be and then writes it down? Maybe an expert can help us get to the truth.
“Hello, who are you, and what are you an expert on?”
“My name is Chris Williams, I'm a senior lecturer at the Open University, and I'm an expert on History of Crime, Policing and Justice.”
“If a policeman broke the law... would he be able to arrest himself?”
“I don't think so, no. Um, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, um, the arresting officer has to sign a prisoner over to the, um, custody officer. And, if they're one and the same person, I can't see how that would work. Also, I don't know how the investigator can interview themself, uh, legally, under that act. And if the case ever got to court - which I don't think it would - um, the defendant would be in a position to cross-examine himself, so... I-I think the judge would stop the trial at that point and... no, I think, is the answer to your question.”
“When they do... reconstructions... you know, on telly, they're dead convincing, aren't they? Have any of them sort of... um, like, got a bit out of hand and turned back into an actual crime?”
“Not to my knowledge, no.”
“It must've happened. Must've.”
“Probably not, they're-”
“It probably has happened, though.”
“We would probably have heard of that if it had happened.”
“All right, okay.”
So, if there wasn't police, we'd be able to do what we liked, which is great! But then, the police wouldn't be able to do what they liked, which is be the police. And that'd be against their human rights.
6088