is one of those doctors who write for the papers. And he also works as a doctor at a prison, thereby achieving an extensive knowledge of the behaviour of English criminals. Not of their behaviour when actually bashing or beating or robbing or engaging in one of the similar activities which gain them respect, but when the criminals behind bars want something. Something such as medicine or a certificate or a transfer.
In his latest article in The Spectator Dalrymple suggests that (at any rate in England) there is a recognisable criminal face. In the harsh and wicked past, young men who had been sent to Junior Prison (Borstal) were
permanently distinguished by a blue dot compulsorily tattooed high on the cheekbone, until, not much later, some young men evolved into a group (like wasps, as opposed to WASPS) who wanted to declare themselves dangerous and
powerful and therefore voluntarily dotted themselves.
If there is a criminal face then it should be inherited by the children of criminals, and Dalrymple makes the outrageous and Politically Incorrect claim that this is
so. Mind you, he provides no statistics, and without them can claim only his opinion. But he describes a three-year-old, visiting his prisoner father, as a three-year-old thug. His recognition of thuggery was based more on facial
expression than facial structure, but perhaps we should protest that the little bastard (for such he is most likely to be) has no other expression to imitate but that of his Dad and his Dad's friends. That "quintessentially
British expression... is the look of feral malignity."
Wow! Going a bit far, wouldn't you say? A three-year-old displaying wild hatred.
But look at the values of that "family" in a violent urban slum. The men are
not evolving from wolf into dog, but in the other direction, from German shepherd into wolf. And wolf with hidden weapons.
Darwin's natural selection succeeds when some characteristic, acquired by chance, leads to increased
reproductive success. In that slum, reproductive success (or at least the chances of "scoring" with many girls) would be favourably affected by the bragging , the machete scar, the concealed weapon, the
"respect". Not at all by the ability to quote Shakespeare and Chaucer or to speak grammatical English. Unnatural Selection prevails.
In those old country villages, both in England and Barbados, the bright boy in the
village, perhaps getting a scholarship, was respected, even admired. Nowadays it 's the parish drug dealer, beginning with the home-made hand-gun and eventually developing into the Mercedes-owner who gets the most respect.
It
must have been our fault, the fault of us oldies. Were we too kind, too understanding, too forgiving? No, I don't think so; that corporate kindness was morally right, even if it turned out to be mistaken. It was worth a try.
It has been tried.
Legalising all drugs and enforcing the death penalty would be a good start in making a change from unnatural selection to more acceptable goals. How about making life in prison a bit harder, more of
a punishment? No bed, just the concrete floor. Bread, water and vitamin pills. Books, of course, but no Penthouse magazines.
What about the policies of the ancient Puritan colonists of New England, with their compulsory
letters (A for Adulterer, R for robber) and the ostracism which followed.? All right, in 1999 we can forget about the A for Adulterer. It would be too widely worn. But wasn't the ostracism a good idea?
In Barbados we seem to
have forgotten the idea of punishment. Wasn't it only last year we read about the driver of one of the Public Service Chariots whose Jehu driver enjoyed his eightieth conviction, paid his fine and drove away with a smile. In more
disciplined countries he would have lost his licence and his living.
Should we continue with our mistaken policies of kindness and understanding?
Or should we bring back the stocks and public floggings? I bet there
would be no lack of spectators. Or, for that matter, of candidates. But in the mood of 1999 maybe these penalties are too severe, too old-fashioned. Alternatively, a convicted armed criminal could be sentenced to wear a dunce's cap
to make him consp- icuous (decorated, I suggest,
with piggy-wigs or Bambi's) and then (Aha!) his empty weapon, tied high at the front of his neck, shoving his proud, respected chin into the air, and secured by many splendid padlocks at the back of his dangerous neck. For months.
The silly b....r look.
However, a recently published Happy Snap showed us a gentleman smiling broadly as he is led away to Glendairy. The reason? He had broken into a house, attempted to rape a 94 year old lady (at least
it wasn't a 94 year old gentleman!) and then done a little incidental robbery. Was his wide grin because of the good food at his destination, because of spending time at his club among his friends, or because Glendairy is one
of the places in Barbados where illegal drugs are readily found?
