Don't be fooled by selective 'tough justice'

The uncompromising sanctions being meted out to rioters and 'inciters' may end up looking political and performative

Julie Sweeney (photo: Cheshire constabulary)

‘Safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not-very-nice people.’

So remarked the former US supreme court judge Felix Frankfurter in 1950.

The late judge’s words occurred to me as I was browsing various media reports of court sentencings handed down to individuals convicted of criminal activity during the recent riots.

Now, let me say very clearly that many of these characters deserved everything they got. Often their actions were indefensible. In some cases, they were monstrous. When all’s said and done, anyone who physically attacks another human being for no good reason, or causes destruction to their community, must expect to lose their freedoms and liberties.

But, reading through the stream of reports as they popped up on social media and elsewhere, I had an uneasy feeling. Because every now and then, among the accounts of entirely justified punishments, I’d hit upon a case that jarred.

There were some examples of what I considered to be over-reach by the courts – where the actions of the defendant, reprehensible though they may have been, didn’t seem to quite justify the punishment meted out to them. Moreover, I questioned in some cases whether the accused’s actions ought to constitute a crime at all.

Could it be that we have been witnessing what some have referred to as ‘judicial activism’ at play?

Let’s take a look at a few of the most troubling cases.