Hard cases make bad law, and cases do not come much harder than that of the two young girls recently abducted and murdered. The temptation must be considerable for the government to respond by doing something rather than nothing, to demonstrate that it is responsive to the will of the people and that it marches to the same drum as the Sun and the Daily Mail.
Tragic as the case undoubtedly is, it is perfectly possible – likely even – that it ought to have no legislative consequences. At the very least, the government should wait until the furore has died down and wise counsel can prevail. Knee-jerk legislation is usually ill-considered, badly drafted and oppressive. Above all, it is unnecessary.
Most of the proposals mooted in the press in response to these murders are either misguided, fatuous or wicked. The idea that convicted sex-offenders should be publicly named and shamed is an invitation to crowd violence and sanctions the lynch-mob mentality, especially among those people who do not know the difference between a paedophile and a paediatrician.
Get Britain's best politics newsletters
Register to get The Spectator's insight and opinion straight to your inbox. You can then read two free articles each week.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in