Wanted: Diverse Criminal Magistrates

I’m not sure what they’re trying to say here:

More people with criminal records should be made magistrates to increase diversity among the judiciary, the chairman of Magistrates Association said last night.

Diversity in what? Criminality?

John Bache insisted a more representative set of magistrates would make criminals feel less alienated by the system.

Giving prisoners keys to the cells would make them feel less confined by the bars, too.

He told the Daily Telegraph: ‘We all make mistakes, we all do things we shouldn’t have done. But we want to increase diversity.

‘And if we did say anyone who’s done anything wrong ever isn’t going to be appointed, that’s no way at all to increase diversity.’

Again, diversity in what?

Mr Bache, who has sat on the bench since 1989, added: ‘We’re trying very hard to increase diversity, but it isn’t as easy as you’d think.

‘For a start people aren’t applying from ethnic minorities to the same degree as they are from white people – because they’ve got the idea that people from their backgrounds don’t become magistrates. And that is obviously erroneous.’

Ah, now I get it: in order to encourage more ethnic minorities to become magistrates we might need to overlook criminal convictions. That’s a rather refreshingly frank admission from an unlikely source, so much so I doubt he realises what he’s actually saying. After all, he also said this:

He suggested having a character from a popular soap become a magistrate could raise awareness of the issue.

Remember when Britain was a serious country? Ah, those halcyon, bygone days.

(H/T JuliaM)


5 thoughts on “Wanted: Diverse Criminal Magistrates

  1. You’re barking up the wrong tree, I suspect Tim.

    I read somewhere (too long ago, no link) that about a third of the baby boomer generation has a criminal conviction (the conviction may be spent as far as the public goes, but the state keeps records for ever). Many of these convictions are for cannabis possession or something plod doesn’t police any more. A conviction for “gross indecency” just means you’re gay, which it is now legal to be.

    Further, volunteers from this already reduced pool probably tend to the extreme of hang ’em an’ flog ’em / the crims just need a hug ends of the distribution.

    Further, it is observable that the middle classes, hitherto 99% of the magistracy) are more indulgent of endemic crime than the lower orders. Most crime is committed against poor people. Immigrants tend to be poorer, at least for a generation or two.

    So, on balance I think this is a good thing.

  2. Why would letting more Baby Boomer stoners become magistrates increase ‘diversity’? They’re as white as the current crop. Its obvious what the chap is trying to say without saying it – ethnic minorities are far more likely to have convictions so if you want to get more of them on the Bench you’d have to relax rules on previous convictions. But he’s straying dangerously close (for him) to Group Un-Think by even implying that, so he better watch out or he’ll be forced to grovel at the Altar of Diversity and denounce himself as an evil racist.

    It occurs to me though that there could be one advantage, to having more convicted criminals on the Bench, namely they might be less prepared to believe the police all the time. Middle class white folk will still tend to think the police are righteous upholders of the truth, while anyone who has any dealings with them will be aware they lie through their teeth routinely. So perhaps some people on the Bench who take police ‘evidence’ with a pinch of salt might not be a bad thing……

  3. +zut alors seems to think that mainly old folks in their late fifties and sixties will apply for the position. Also that this is Murrica we’re talking about, where the rozzers are so keen to earn brownie points that they arrest you for having cigarettes without a brand name on them.

    The last time I was in a courtroom, here in a black majority country, I did notice a serious lack of People of Colour. Specifically, blue or green colours. For more diversity we need Martians and Smurfs, but they tend to feel very alienated by just about anything human.

  4. So we’re back to the old “Not the 9 O’Clock News” sketch involving constable Savage are we? Presumably along with the distorted “liberal” point of view that it is not Black and Ethnic Minorities who are the problem, but the institutionalised racism of the police?


    Now don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of the police since they have abandoned whatever tenuous ties to the Peelian principles they once had and are now little more than the lowest level of the local arms of the state, but the idea that the reason for a lack of diversity in the magistracy is the result of decades of “Keepin’ da man dahn” (or whatever the patois is nowadays) is frankly ludicrous.

    Maybe a little leniency in regard to motoring offences (speeding, not “twocking”) or a single, youthful indiscretion amount to no more than a misdemeanor, long balanced by years of good standing, perhaps, but I doubt that is what is causing the problem here. I strongly suspect that this is the magistracy being sat on the edge of a cliff and then being given a good shove.

    After all, what is the point of introducing all of this diversity if the almost exclusively white, old (and probably BRexit voting) bourgeoise running magistrates courts across the country are going to keep giving our new voters criminal records for the rather outdated concept of breaking the law?

  5. There is still, probably all because of racism, the problem that a lot of non-ethnic people (in a currently mostly white nation) would feel aggrieved to be arrested by say, a Muslim police officer, appear before a Muslim magistrate and found guilty under a law hastened through a ‘diverse’ parliament with the help of a Muslim pressure group darkly intent on applying some anti-white bias.

    There is a point where one might say, “whose side are you people on?”

Comments are closed.