Subscribe to our RSS feed Taking part in a recent radio show that interviewed knife-carrying kids in my neck-of -the woods, it was clear that they carry for many reasons. First - kids are afraid that without one they will be vulnerable to others with knives. Second - it gives status. With a knife you may not have much else but you're a big man and who's going to diss you now? And third - for some it is a fashion accessory.
Lots of kids don't even know that if you cut an artery in the leg it can kill you. Most of them carry and don't intend to use - but it happens and they 'plunge' and that's it. So - as with drunk driving - a hard hitting campaign about the consequences of carrying a knife both for the victim and the aggressor can make an impact over time. It's about education about the realities; face-to-face work with the families or survivors of knifings - so consequences are faced.
We also should have equal sentencing for carrying a knife as carrying a gun - but simple locking away on its own can just shield young people from the reality of their actions, and so doesn't help reduce the reoffending rate when they're released. (Far too often it's forgotten that most people jailed will be released at some point - unless we start imposing ridiculously over-the-top life sentences for every crime - which means making sure people don't go out and commit more crimes after their sentence is completed is crucial). So - in addition, a combination of punishment, retribution, reparation and rehabilitation is needed.
Next - take away the relative security that young people feel about not being caught carrying a knife. Random metal detector arches going into key places - out of the blue. Has to be random - in timing and placement. I'm against permanent arches in places like schools as that brutalises children and they would just leave them elsewhere anyway. But if that sense of not being caught could be removed - and it becomes too dodgy to carry - the less they will carry.
Then there is the real work is about listening to kids and learning what has to happen to make them feel safe enough not to carry a knife; feel valued enough not to need the status and what it will take to disabuse them of the idea that it is cool. And to do that - we need their help. So we need some poacher turned gamekeepers to help us work it out. It may be part diversion, part care and attention, part education, part aspiration and perhaps taking young people out of their own normal environments - away from peer groups and out of comfort zones and home territory. Remove them from the culture itself and put them to good use helping others, such as doing community service in locations away from home.
One thing for sure, it won't be quick and it won't be easy - and it won't be as cheap as another headline or rushed, knee-jerk legislation!
Anyway, enough from me - let me have your views!
Lynne Featherstone is number two in the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs team and writes a blog about her work in Haringey and Parliament at www.lynnefeatherstone.org/blog.htm
Lynne - a though-provoking article and an excellent attempt to adress what is clearly a problem. I think you have some good ideas there.
The "liberal" part of me does raise two concerns, though:
(i) How would you define a "young person", and would you make carrying a knife by such persons illegal?
(ii) What about people who for quite legitimate reasons wish to carry a pocket knife, such as a Swiss Army knife? Such a knife if used in the right way can kill just as easily as some of the scary weapons sold and carried.
This is not meant to be negative - just that (as I'm sure you realise) trying to tackle complex problems like this can lead to unintended illiberal consequences.
________________________________________________
"Think big thoughts but relish small pleasures."
H. Jackson Brown, Jr.
Disincentives to knife carrying are indeed a good idea, but we should be cautious about the idea of disincentive by prior restraint. It's a short step from what Lynne Featherstone is proposing to the idea of having random searches of everyone at any time. Of course private individuals and businesses can use detection methods, but schools are public places, and children are compelled to attend.
A more liberal approach would be to create a disincentive to knife crime by more drastic punishment of those who attack others using knives. Can a liberal really be comfortable locking people up for the victimless crime of carrying a knife?
If children are carrying knives because they fear attack then it is cruel to lock them up for attempting to defend themselves. Don't children have the right of self-defence too? If we adopt prior restraint as our approach the penalties we can attach to a charge of carrying a knife must be tempered by the knowledge that some of those charged will be otherwise innocent children who just don't want to die. The alternative is that we will lock up a string of children who are guilty of carrying knives but who are morally entirely innocent.
So if our penalties are reduced, then so is our disincentive to the guilty - those who use knives to attack others. We will tend to disarm the innocent (who are more likely to be deterred by the prospect of a prison sentence) while leaving the guilty in possession of their knives.
This is why the only sensible approach is to apply heavy penalties to those who attack others with knives, but to recognise the need for self-defence, a fundamental right if ever there was one, for the innocent. In this way you can focus your disincentive on the guilty.
Interesting article.
Institutions like schools and hospitals should certainly be able to ban knife-carrying for any purpose. It's a bit harder in other areas - you don't want to arrest a carpenter for carrying a Stanley knife, for example. I also agree with Bishop Hill's argument that penalties for crimes committed with knives should be higher, to avoid targetting otherwise innocent people who happen to have a knife.
I agree that there's any single solution to the knife problem. Certainly carrying knives needs to be made less acceptable, and the perceived need for knife-carrying needs to be reduced by a more visible police presence. People must feel safe in their communities.
Furthermore, I agree that disincentives to knife-carrying are a good idea. There need to be easy ways for people and businesses to detect knife-carrying and bar the person from using the premises. This isn't a violation of rights; people are entitled to place limits on what you can do on their property, and carrying knives is one such thing.
Bishop Hill, you say that we shouldn't criminalise people for carrying knives, but what else would they be carrying them for if not to commit crime?
Andy - as I mentioned in the top post on this thread, what about a Swiss Army knife? And pipe-smoking may be out of fashion, but there is such a thing as a Smoker's knife. Three million people fish. Fisherman's knives? Scots and their Sgian Dubhs?
A car is a potential lethal weapon, yet you wouldn't ban people from driving. Punish (harshly) the crime. By all means remove knives from private spaces too.
________________________________________________
"Think big thoughts but relish small pleasures."
H. Jackson Brown, Jr.
> Scots and their Sgian Dubhs?
Sikhs and their kirpans?
Very interesting article from Lynne, need to go through it in more detail.
Some, um, interesting comments, but completely off topic; Rob, second the request to delete all of them completely, or, if possible, edit out the content completely instead.
Max? Lynne is a respected Member of the UK Parliament, this is a guest article by her, having guest authors of her calibre is to be welcomed here, please keep your comments to the appropriate discussions elsewhere, they're completely irrelevent to this article.
Andy V
They could be carrying them in order to defend themselves against threats of violence. As I pointed out in my original comment, this may be made a crime in law, but morally it is not.
Mat - the comments from Max are now gone. I've given my reasoning here.
Bishop - "It was only for self-defence, your honour" - a likely story! The police should be able to stop the hoodlums who are causing a menace to ordinary people with their knive-wielding antics.
Andy, you're missing the point. We can't criminalise people who are doing no harm to others. Simply posessing a knife does not - and should not - make someone a criminal. Even carrying a knife for self-defence is, in my opinion, legitimate even if it is unwise. The emphasis needs to be on punishing those who abuse knives, or indeed any violent implement; this has a twofold effect of discouraging other people from carrying knives, and persuading those who might carry knives for self-defence that doing so is unnecessary.
It is worth pointing out, however, that whilst a person might claim that they have a 'right' to carry a knife, that right does not extend to taking a knife into someone else's property, e.g. a pub, school or other definable area. The owner(s) of that property might legitimately ban the carrying of knives there, full stop, with no further need to justify their case.
Andy:
What Rob said.
The question of whether a plea of self-defence is valid or not is a question for a jury to decide. The principle that the police should stop the knife wielding hoodlums is all very well, but how can they separate the hoodlums from the merely frightened? What the "lock up anyone caught in possession" approach does is to give the frightened two options: gaol or death. Not a situation most people would like to be caught in.
I feel we are not addressing the cultural messages people are getting about knives. Modern culture glorifies violence and celebrates people who use violence to achieve their goals. It's no wonder that kids turn to weapons to boost their self-esteem when they see it all around them.
Taking knives out of the hands of children, criminals and the mad is a good idea. Denying people the ability to defend themselves is a bad idea. People commit crimes with knives for two reasons, one because stabbing someone with a knife is fun, two because you won't get caught.
The solution is at once simple and at the same time requires political courage: make streets safer by having more policeman on them, and imprison those who break the law (with knives or other kitchen utensils) more often and for longer.
Making more laws, having metal detectors in streets, banning gangster rap music, or having more youth clubs all sound very appealing but are, in the end, doomed.
A similar point was made some twenty years ago by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling in the seminal "Broken Windows" thesis.
Lynne, will the Lib Dems vote in favour of higher sentences for knife crime if they are proposed?
I think the answer to your question about voting for higher knife crime sentences is in this entry from her blog.
i think that this website is very good and helps me a lot about knife crime. i have some questions though. What is a aggressor? What is a knee-jerk legislation? How can you help if you see someone with a knife?
i am doing a project in PSHE about knife crime so i wanted some facts.
thanks x