In August thousands of people in cities across England took to the
streets in the country’s biggest riots for decades.
Apocalyptic images of burning homes and businesses, track-suited
looters raiding JJB Sports and lines of armoured police, beamed into living
rooms everywhere.
Even those living in the leafiest of London suburbs flinched at
the sound of a siren, as they anxiously checked Twitter for news.
Nearly 4,000 people were arrested for their involvement in the
unrest.
Among them was teenager Danielle Corns, who was sentenced to 10
months in prison for stealing two left-footed trainers from a shop in
Wolverhampton.
Pointless? Yes. Wrong? Of course. But worthy of nearly a year in a
young offenders institute? I don’t think so.
A string of harsh penalties have been handed out to those involved
in the summer riots.
While I believe those who caused criminal damage and spread fear
up and down the country should be punished, the punishment should fit the crime.
It’s easy to say the book should be thrown at them, but in reality
what will sending someone with no previous convictions to prison achieve?
Sure it’ll make them think twice about doing it again, but for
most of the people punished, a court appearance would have been enough to put a
stop to their faltering criminal career.
In the months since the violence some have put what happened down
to the desire for a free TV. But I’m not so sure.
So why did rioters firebomb a family carpet shop in Croydon? What
made them trash 89-year-old Aaron Biber’s Tottenham barber shop?
In the heat of the moment we could accuse them of being a “feral
underclass” - a la David Cameron – but we
can’t ignore the rising discontent
bubbling beneath the surface that sparked the violence in the first place.
A joint study by the LSE and The Guardian released last week found
for most rioters it was a sense of social injustice that fuelled their anger.
The research, which interviewed 270 people involved in the four-day
riots, said they were reacting to a lack of opportunity and jobs.
However, it also found those that looted acted on impulse and
opportunism.
So those girls who were recorded saying they loved rioting because
of the free alcohol were clearly not political activists.
But there’s no denying that for many there was nothing to lose.
While this may not be true of Danielle, who had just finished her
A Levels, I’m not sure that just because someone has something to lose we
should take advantage of that.
Instead of handing out disproportionate sentences, which only
serve to perpetuate the injustice people felt in the first place, we should be
addressing the causes of inequality in our society.
·
A Reading the Riots report will be published in full on Wednesday
·
For more on riots and protest in 2011 look out for the first issue
of POV, a new magazine full of creative content, out in January.
