Although the legal and ethical definitions of right are the antithesis of each other, most writers use them as synonyms. They confuse power with goodness, and mistake law for justice. ~Charles T. Sprading, Freedom and its Fundamentals
Dashing young thieves, a daring robbery, £40m in stolen jewellery, a clean getaway and no-one seriously injured - it is a scenario that has all the hallmarks of a Hollywood blockbuster.
I have to admit to a small smile when I read about it. Obviously, it would have been an entirely different situation had anyone been hurt, and while I would never seek to make light of the fear and trauma that those involved undoubtedly felt, nonetheless the fact remains that no-one was hurt, aside from Graaf’s insurers. I have no particular love for the wealthy elite and so I’m afraid I can’t find it within me to feel a great deal of sympathy for their loss. As far as I’m concerned, that £40m in adornments to decorate the necks and ears of people who have, arguably, done little to deserve their wealth would be far better spent in helping the thousands of people who are being made homeless everyday by the capitalists who are repossessing their homes. Which is why I have to laugh at the £1m reward now being offered for information leading to their capture. When the rest of the country is struggling to make ends meet, do they seriously believe that anyone will be that outraged by a crime which only offends the upper class where it most hurts – in their wallets?
Peter Bleksley, a former police officer and current crime writer, appearing on BBC’s Breakfast show yesterday morning expressed his outrage at the glamourization of crime while he pointed out that these two men were dangerous armed criminals and that people could have been hurt but for a stroke of luck. There were a few things about his comments that bothered me, not the least of which was the health and safety credo of "could have". Yes, "could have" but "didn’t". If people weren’t drawn to the dark, seductive, inherent sexiness of crime, then he wouldn’t be selling any books. I highly doubt that people buy them because they are horrified at the things that human beings are capable of doing to each other; they buy them because they are intrigued by the criminal mind, and because of their innate desire to know that justice has been done.
Perhaps it's not so much the glamour of this crime that has seduced people. Perhaps it is more of an expression of the desire to strike back at the capitalism that brought about the recession that has ground so many people down. It is the rich being targeted at a time when the poor are suffering. It is a sense of justice, of balance being restored. Maybe that is what Mr. Bleksley should be considering, instead of condemning people for their lack of moral fiber in failing to regard the heinousness of the crime. Being seduced by crime does not mean that a person is lacking in ethics.
After all, I glamourize crime in my own writings, and I’m not ashamed to admit that. I believe very strongly that the world is a highly complex place and that the nature of right and wrong is not as easy to define as perhaps it once was. For example, whilst I disagree with Ronnie Biggs being allowed compassionate release from prison, I also appreciate his son’s remarks earlier on this week that there are teenagers knifing and murdering each other on the streets who don’t get anywhere near the sentence that his father received. Justice is a very sticky issue which comes down to many different things, and the right decision isn’t always made in courts. Is it any wonder that movies such as Ocean’s 11, The Italian Job, Robin Hood and Swordfish have such wide appeal? So what if the law is broken? True justice is being served, and that’s what really matters to people when they are morally outraged and the system has let them down.
So sue me for wishing those boys well, and for glamourizing crime. I also glamourize morality, for those who care to look deep enough.
