Franz Gall was long ago dismissed as a pseudo-scientist by a Liberal left; his theory that there was such a thing as a ‘criminal brain’ abandoned when neuroscientists proved that there was no connection between the ‘bumps’ that he felt on the scalp, and the workings of the brain. It suited the liberal left to see his theories dismissed – demands for ever increasing levels of ‘support’ for the country’s idle (unless it was for free) could only be justified by theories of the supremacy of nurture over nature.

Now the neuroscientists are having to eat their words after finding that there are essential brain differences between those who call for more state funded support for the idle classes to ‘nurture’ them and those who call for independence and a form of government that allows people to stand and fall by their own efforts.

The ‘liberal left’ are more likely to have thicker anterior cingulates and those hard faced ‘right wingers’ an enlarged amyg-dala. Whoa! One side of the political divide is intrinsically thicker, and t’other has a part of their brain which has developed more prominently? – and one side of the political divide wishes to support those who make no useful contribution to society on the grounds that if only they had enough money they wouldn’t be forced to steal, and one side says ‘survival of the fittest’.

Come back Franz Gall!

It is a particularly interesting debate to have re-opened in the past 24 hours due to events in the small Yorkshire market town of Kirkheaton last night.

Alistair Bell was the local criminal, a man with a history of violence. He had been to prison several times with no apparent sign of reforming his ways. No job, no obvious means of support. A Pit-bull type of dog by way of sole companion. It had fostered a local belief that he was involved in the drugs trade in some way.

On Monday night, he called round to see an ‘acquaintance’ – one might reasonably assume that he made his friends, as do the rest of us, from amongst those with similar interests and views on society. Monday night however, he and his friends fell out, voices were raised, threats issued. His friend was scared.

The friend turned to those ‘fascist bastards’ the Police. You know – the ones that deny you your human right to peacefully demonstrate your belief that you should have a free education by dropping a fire extinguisher on their head. Those ‘murdering, out-of-control bastards’ that persecute motorists.

Anyway, two of these ‘fascist bastards’ promised to intervene and called round to see young Alistair and his Pit-bull. Just as well, the friend was right to be scared, for Alistair promptly shot one of the policemen on the front doorstep. His colleagues, ‘useless fascist bastards’ to a man, rallied round and took him off to hospital. Then they went back to the house to have another word with Alistair. For the next seven hours, as the ‘friend’ slept peacefully, safe from Alistair’s wrath over whatever the contretemps was, they cowered behind police cars on a freezing night, as Alistair continued to fire shots at them.

By morning, an armed policeman had joined their group. Alistair fired three more shots at the waiting policeman. The armed policeman fired one back. Obviously an overreaction by the Police. They should never have let the fact that a known drug user was firing willy-nilly at them for seven hours colour their judgement. The Police are well enough paid by we ‘service users’ and should have called in a cultural diversity expert to see whether an increase in his dole money might put Alistair in a better mood.

So it is that this morning you will read in your papers that the Police have cold bloodedly murdered yet another ‘innocent citizen’ – for Alistair had not been charged with anything and must therefore be considered an innocent soul. No doubt flowers and Teddy Bears will appear outside his house, Facebook groups will be set up devoted to his memory – ‘a true friend’ – and the Policeman who cowered outside his house all night will thaw out in the canteen, and trot off to the Independent Police Complaints Commission to be duly chastised.

Some of them may have long memories. This is not the first time this has happened in Kirkheaton. Not that I am suggesting that the inhabitants of Kirkheaton have any sort of genetic propensity to criminality, perish the thought. It does seem strange though, that none of the papers are mentioning young Alfred Moore.

Young Alfred also lived in Kirkheaton, back in 1951, a different age. He was also a man who plodded around the area in the middle of the night, grabbing whatever he could to pay for the things he wanted. A few spells in prison hadn’t changed his ways. The Police called round to ‘have a chat with him’ as they do, and he responded by shooting two of them. Dead. One of the policemen lived long enough to identify him, and he was duly charged, found guilty – and hung by the neck until dead.

One village, two criminals, three policemen shot, two criminals dead. Little difference you might think, but a world apart in the involvement of society.

In 1951 a jury was allowed to say ‘guilty of murder’ in the certain knowledge that their abhorrence at the shooting of a man for merely doing his job would result in the death of the man responsible. There was no chance of reoffending after a few years in prison, no chance that Alfred Moore would ever get the opportunity to point a gun at his neighbours – or the police – ever again.

It is considered ‘inhumane’ that a jury of his peers should make such a decision, inhumane that society should give up on a person such as Alfred Moore and demand his life, we are too civilised these days. Indeed, Alfred Moore became one of those starred individuals allegedly hung in a miscarriage of justice which led to the abolition of capital punishment.

Nowadays the police are expected to make these decisions alone, based on the threat to their life. An individual officer is solely responsible for that decision. He will be called a ‘murdering bastard’ – possibly even by Alistair’s friend who called them in rather than risk facing a bullet himself.

The debate will re-open – not over whether we should have capital punishment or not, we are too civilised to even discuss that, but whether the police should be specially trained to just ever so slightly wound a man with a special easy to remove bullet that won’t damage his best jeans, and only after he has fired at least 30 rounds at them.

Perhaps the debate we should really be having is whether it should be part of an unarmed man’s job to call round on a freezing night to sort out death threats between drug dealers and their clients, or even to make sure that soft headed students can throw fire extinguishers off buildings in safety.

I would vote for letting the drug dealers sort out their own squabbles, the students to chuck fire extinguishers at each other unhindered; let’s disband the police. Put them all on the dole, do without their taxes supporting those they are supposed to protect…..

Arghh, which means Alistair’s friend takes the bullet, that will never do.

No, we need the Police if only to act as bogeyman for the thicker anterior cingulates in society.

mark January 3, 2011 at 20:29

Good evening Anna and Happy New Year. I personally am not surprised by the
result of the study as it seems to suggest that those of us who believe in
taking responsibilty for ourselves ( horrible right wingers as Polly Toynbee
would call us) are more intelligent than Lefties. This is hardly news. As for
the Amygdala I am led to believe that it is more enlarged in Men rather than
Women and explains Women’s lack of self awareness. ( see Anglobitch
blogspot.com for further details). Does this mean therefore that Right wing
men are more self reliant and more self aware than other groups in society? If
this is true and it’s a big if ,does it therefore follow that left wing women
are less self reliant and less self aware ? This might explain why Toynbee,
YAB and Harridan Harmsmen etc always want more money to be paid by someone
else and are unaware of the possible consequences of their actions? Just a
thought!!!!!

JohnRS December 31, 2010 at 10:49

One thought – So much for our draconian gun control laws. Seems, a usual,
as if the only armed people on the streets are the criminals. Even the police
have to go home and get their guns or call for armed support.

Something’s definitely wrong.

Richard B December
30, 2010 at 13:54

Engineer: “A long-serving and old-fashioned copper of my aquaintance once
said to me that society was about 95% decent people wanting to get on with
their lives, and 5% scumbags preying on the 95%. The job of the police was to
make life easier for the 95% by unremittingly harrying the 5%. Not sure how
that fits with the ‘posh’ theories, but it does have the ring of truth about
it born of long experience. ”

That is 100% my understanding of the nature and purpose of policing, but I
think it belongs to the 1950s, Dixon of Dock Green, era when I was growing up.
That was before the police became an arm of the social services and liberal
elite, and were tasked with dealing with social problems rather than harrying
the bad guys. Example: someone offends someone with a racist statement. That
should be a civil matter and never involve the police. The offending person
should be taken to court and argue it out according to the laws of the land,
not take up valuable police time being incarcerated and processed like a
burglar or thief. I suppose the modern thinking is that racism (and similar
‘social’ offences) are as serious as assault and theft, and the police should
treat them as such. I can’t agree, and I think it’s a long way back to a
simpler world where right and wrong were a clearer, and more
universally-agreed, concept.

Ed P December 30, 2010 at 12:37

Which is more civilised, CP or “life means life”? A quick and relatively
painless end at the end of a rope or by bullet vs. possibly decades of
incarceration with no hope of release? Neither seem to be humane treatments,
regardless of the crime.
The USA give out sentences sometimes of hundreds
of years, presumably because the recipients serve only a ridiculously small
fraction. Just like here, with the years of a sentence meaning ” no more than
2/3 & often only 1/2 with good behaviour”. It would be a more effective
deterrent to have sentences that mean “no less than the time stated, possibly
more for bad behaviour”

Anonymous December 29, 2010 at 22:51

Sounds like the Police should have tried to get the Pit Bull to talk sense
to Mr Bell.

As far as state sanctioned killing is concerned, if some one spends the
night blasting away at the Police, and hasn’t calmed down/sobered up/run out
of ammo by the time that an Armed Response Team arrives, then that sounds like
reasonable use of lethal force to me. Still have an enquiry though.

Carrying out an execution afterwards (especially when a criminal is likely
to have been disarmed and presents a lower immediate threat) is IMO wrong.
What crimes justify a death sentence? More importantly, which crimes don’t?
I’d prefer to pay for more prisons. And if politicians can’t be trusted to
commit funds to build more prisons/pay for long sentences, how can they be
trusted to gate-keep the final, political approvals for executions? Finally,
mission-creep. Once execution can be imposed as the outcome of a
judicial/administrative process, what stops a future Parliament from defining
more crimes as capital?

I’m not a lefty, but I wouldn’t trust the state with administrative power
of life or death over anyone.

Gildas theMonk
December 29, 2010 at 22:32

I love the debate on this site. It leaves me better informed and more
thoughtful.
Thank you all.
G the Monk

Engineer December 29, 2010 at 20:10

I have to confess to being somewhat sceptical of all the theorising that
goes on around different aspects of human nature. It is far too complex to be
neatly explained by a research paper.

A long-serving and old-fashioned copper of my aquaintance once said to me
that society was about 95% decent people wanting to get on with their lives,
and 5% scumbags preying on the 95%. The job of the police was to make life
easier for the 95% by unremittingly harrying the 5%. Not sure how that fits
with the ‘posh’ theories, but it does have the ring of truth about it born of
long experience.

One corollary, of course, is that many of the 5% have real problems; mental
health, addiction or whatever. How many of them could be returned to the 95%
is an often debated, but rarely answered question.

will December 29, 2010 at 15:18

Beside the main point but Just to quickly pick up on the detail of our
police refereeing disputes between ne’er do wells. coming from the
individualist voluntarist/anarchist end of libertarianism I’d say such
disputes add to the case against collectivist state policing.
anarcho-capitalist theory has several variations on the idea of private
individual security/legal insurance. sometimes referred to as private
protection agencies or dispute resolution organisations. in this case none of
us would be paying for this police action. the fear of higher premiums might
motivate individuals to be more discriminating in their
associations.
secondly this can be seen as an early step on the ladder of
escalating violence within the illegal drug trade. prohibition leads to
violent criminal activity. noone has been shot round here as a result of a
coffee related transaction. most illegal drugs should cost about the same as
coffee and should attract a similar level of violent crime – ie none.

Andrew P Withers
December 29, 2010 at 14:43

I will never trust the state to kill in my name, under any circumstances in
cold blood.

However I have very little problem in fighting fire with fire. If somebody
is blazing away from a house at the Police/public, they should accept the risk
of a hail of hot lead coming in the other direction.

Equally anybody entering my home should be equally sure that there is a
high risk that he/she would not leave undamaged.

Just going now to examine my ‘bumps’ to see which side of the ‘Law’ I am
on

Jiks December 29, 2010 at 13:31

Not a great fan of current police attitudes at the moment but have to say
they did the right thing here. As they often do, in fairness.

As to whether the study quoted will stand up to examination, I have my
doubts. I suspect the culture we are brought up in vastly outweighs genetics
in most cases. For example, the way men treat women in, say Pakistan, when
compared to Sweden.

Richard B December
29, 2010 at 13:02

“No doubt flowers and Teddy Bears will appear outside his house, Facebook
groups will be set up devoted to his memory – ‘a true friend’ ”

Also:
1. A description of him from a ‘mate’ as a ‘loveable rogue’,
2.
His Nan telling the news media that he was ‘no angel, but …’
3. A card tied
to a lamp-post with the single word “wHy???????”

JuliaM December
30, 2010 at 08:05

The ‘Daily Mash’ is still on holiday hiatus, but ‘Newsthump’ helped them out a bit on this one…

John Levett December 29, 2010 at 12:45

Anna – Are you not conflating several disparate issues into a flawed whole
here?

Firstly, the phrenology argument would seem to fly in the face of what I
thought was a commonly observed shift from left to right as we age.

Secondly. on the information provided about the Kirkheaton incident, the
police appear to have taken a commendably restrained approach and few will
question the outcome, surely? But can the same really be said about the de
Menezes shooting? Or the guy with the table leg? Are you really prepared to
offer unqualified support to a police force that kills so many innocents in
dubious ‘hot pursuits’ or that ignores the complaints of taunting and yobbery
by the mother of a disabled daughter who is then driven to kill her daughter
and commit suicide? Are all those youtube videos of out-of-control police
officers fabricated or taken out of context? The fact that good policing
appears to have been the order of the day in Kirkheaton is surely a case for
weeding out the ‘fascist bastards’ who are increasingly bringing the police
force into disrepute?

Lastly, the fire extinguisher business. Isn’t the misguided individual who
launched it being prosecuted? How can that be described as ‘unhindered’?

PS My guess is that the neuro-study you refer to will prove to be as
reliable as the safe alcohol limits, 5 fruit & veg a day,
second/third-hand smoke and climate change studies – i.e.politically motivated
claptrap.

Regards

Zaphod December 29, 2010 at 11:37

I can’t accept capital punishment by the state, in cold blood.
But when
a shooter ends up dead, that’s a good result.
Well done, the cops.
Some
will consider this attitude inconsistent. It’s not.

Anna
Raccoon December 29, 2010 at
11:46

Can you explain Zaphod?
dead is dead, but is it so different when it
is proclaimed by 12 of your peers or ordained by one policeman?

Zaphod December 29, 2010 at 13:04

It’s just a strong instinctive feeling, but I’ll try to rationalise
convincingly.

As an analogy, consider combat in war. Many can be killed, but we all
agree, (?) that those who surrender, even after killing many of the enemy,
should be prisoners of war, treated humanely.

Okay, the analagy is not perfect. But you may see my point. I can be
against Capital Punishment but still cheer when the good guys win in the
heat of battle.

Anna
Raccoon December 29, 2010 at
13:25

OK, I see where you are coming from – the ‘action taken’ is
understandable in the heat of the moment – but surely it is
better that the decision to take that action should be after jury
deliberation?
I know I couldn’t personally kill someone, but then I
coulnd’t even practise giveing an injection on an orange, so I don’t
take my own feelings on the subject as indicative of anything.
It is
quite wrong that we expect some in our society to earn their living
sorting out dodgy disputes between drug dealers and their customers,
knowing full well that if the price of sorting it out is to get shot,
that the person concerned will be back on the street laughing at them
seven years later.
We don’t ask our army to do that, why should we
expect unarmed police officers to put up with it? And in asking them to
put up with it, are we not engendering a situation whereby colleagues of
those officers will ‘feel themselves in danger’ and quietly deal with
the situation with a bullet between the eyes which everyone swears blind
was in self defence – merely becasue we won’t support them?

Zaphod
December 29, 2010 at 15:09

It’s not just understandable, it’s often the best solution.

The man on the spot usually knows more than any jury. And he takes
the consequences of his mistakes, unlike a jury. (False positives and
false negatives). I’m not saying there should be no inquiry after a
death, but a cop shooting a gunman should get the benefit of the
doubt, even if he wasn’t in immediate danger. Even if the gun is a
fake. Or a table leg in a binbag. (Never, ever, carry a table leg, or
two broomsticks taped together, in a binbag; unless you’re planning a
robbery and you haven’t got a gun.)

If you couldn’t kill personally, in cold blood, then you cannot
support CP. That’s not acceptable. So there. Be told.

We do ask the army to risk their lives, and they accept the deal.

I believe that “life” should mean life, where appropriate.
Deliberate killers who aren’t ever coming out should be in a seperate
prison, too. Good external security, not too much inside. Throw food
in occasionally. This idea needs a bit of work.

This is all just opinion, but it’s strongly held.

JuliaM December
29, 2010 at 12:37

Not inconsistent at all.

Mind you, I’m all FOR capital punishment!