The Abolition of Liberty: The Decline of Order and Justice in England by Peter Hitchens

The Abolition of Liberty: The Decline of Order and Justice in England Reviews

• 
  Daniel

  When you read this book, your blood boils with righteous anger at how the United Kingdom has been misgoverned for so long. Our descent into lawlessness has been accompanied by an ever-increasing attack upon the civil liberties of peaceful, law-abiding citizens. It has got to the point now that everything is policed in this country except for actual crime. Peter Hitchens has revised some of his views about the role of the state since this book was written (he is no longer opposed to the welfare state or nationalised industries on principle), but I know that he stands over the substance of this book. In fact, given the tyranny of the last few years, it is now more relevant than ever.
• 
  Charlie

  This is an excellent book on what happened to the English legal system. I appreciated the book having also read
  The Secret Barrister: Stories of the Law and How it's Broken , which identifies issues of the justice system. Hitchens covers how many of those problems originated. This book and The Secret Barrister gel well together. Hitchens has a broader focus, as he explains goes into the history of policing and prisons. The problems have gotten worse in the years since this book was written, with prisons overcrowded and it is rare for a prisoner to fully serve their sentence. Police spend so much of their time on politically fashionable issues instead of proper crimes. Hate crimes were not in vogue at the time this book was written, but one can see how we were on that in this book. The situation is so absurd that making jokes and posting song lyrics are now hate crimes that you can be criminalised for. In cases of home invasions, the law is heavily weighted to the invader rather than the victim. Crime rates have risen recently. In London, the murder rate overtook that of New York for the first time. That makes this book for relevant than ever.
• 
  Adrian

  One may assume that The Abolition of Liberty to be an extended version of a copy of the Daily Mail, however, Peter Hitchens makes a cogent and well thought out case that British Law has traditionally served the people, but this has been slowly transformed into a system that serves the Liberal Elite State.
  The contrast Hitchens draws is between the Common Law, serving the people, as opposed to the Code Napoleon, serving the state. The Code Napoleon has been incorporated into the UK Law through the European Convention on Human Rights (a moot point post-Brexit) and the Liberal Elite who believe in a secular religion wherein redemption is achieved through rehabilitation and responsibility is a product of a bygone era.
  The books title and cover pertains to the proposed introduction of ID Cards under New Labour in the mid 2000s, however, this is entirely relevant today, especially in the wake of Vaccine Passports.
  The book makes a compelling case for a stronger deterrent based system full of more active police who serve the people, relics of a bygone age. Regardless of one’s views on justice, even a reader such as myself who believes in a rehabilitative justice system, Hitchens will do what he does best, challenge your views and make you think.
• 
  Colin Hoad

  It's rare to read a book that so thoroughly challenges your political assumptions and perceptions about how society operates, and especially rare to be presented with a thesis whose conclusion is as provocative as it is hard to refute - in spite of how unintuitive it might seem at the outset.
  
  Peter Hitchens' proposition is that to truly safeguard liberty a society must ensure that criminals both fear the law and are properly punished when they break it. It is only by operating harsh penalties for lawbreakers that society can avoid restricting the liberties of the majority. Far too often this view has been lampooned as a "hang 'em and flog 'em" reactionary position, but what Mr. Hitchens presents is both cogent and deeply researched. He does not believe we should severely punish the wicked for any kind of emotive "retributionist" reason, but rather argues for it from a purely rational position: if we value liberty (as we should) for the majority of people, we have to take care to protect it. Failure to do so results in an ever-growing police state that amasses more and more powers of surveillance at the expense of the liberties of the innocent. What is more, such powers regularly fail to catch true criminals and instead criminalise the law-abiding.
  
  I cannot do justice to Mr. Hitchens' arguments in this review, and can only recommend that his book be read in full in order to fully understand his position. Having done so myself, I am left in the uncomfortable position - as a libertarian - of both disagreeing with some of his prescriptions while being unable to adequately explain why. What he argues for is not easy to accept, but it is all the more deserving of attention precisely because it discomfits so many of the liberal assumptions many of us make.
  
  This book has been so thought-provoking that I am now encouraged to read his "The Abolition of Britain" - an earlier book, but one which Mr. Hitchens references on a number of occasions throughout "The Abolition of Liberty".
• 
  Adam Ross

  If Newsweek is correct and "We're all socialists now," then we really ought to calculate the price-tag attached to that. Hitchens shows us that price tag by analyzing the ravages of leftism in his home of Britain. Every person in America should read this book. Really really good.
• 
  Cole

  Some good arguments in here and he's absolutely right that absolute travesties have happened to the British people; the right to bear arms being taken away, the softening of the stance to criminals (particularly with the introduction of PACE 1984), the removal of community/beat based policing and the blatant social engineering that took place by elite ideologues in the name liberty and tolerance.
  
  Other parts of the book just strike a bum note though. He waffles about the death penalty being taken away while stating so many things wrong with its initial use anyway. He also seems to be stuck in a bit of time warp where the most menacing aspects of crime are things like riding a bike on the pavement and anti-social behaviour. This isn't what concerns people the most at all and no amount of dancing around the real issues by Hitchens will change that.
  
  Not bad but not great either.
• 
  Jonathan

  Peter Hitchens once asked, “If all the police officers in this country were suddenly abducted by aliens, how long would it take us to notice?” (to which the vast majority of Britons would reply, “Too long”).
  In A Brief History of Crime, Hitchens undertakes an excellent examination of the dismal state of the justice system in modern Britain, and how it ended up that way. He makes note of the virtual disregarding of “petty crimes”, restriction of such basic liberties as self-defence, the creation of both a geographical and social rift between police officers and the public, and the powerlessness of the state in many of Britain’s prisons.
  If you live in Britain, you won’t learn much from this book. The deplorable quality of the justice system is common knowledge. However, Hitchens commendably addresses widespread suspicion and anxiety with a wealth of legal cases, quotes and statistics, sadly giving credence to popular anecdotal complaints.
  
• 
  Mike C

  The usual intellectual but readable analysis by Peter Hitchens. This book is educational and informative as are all of his works.
  Two issues which I disagree with however - Peter's strong opposition to identity cards which I think is rather silly. They should be regarded as tools of convenience, not threats to freedom. If I want to pay a parking fine online here I just insert my ID number in the website etc. The other issue is that of beat patrolling by the police. Such activity my be a deterrent but would also pose significant danger nowadays to policemen as well. The best method is car patrols where they drive around slowly and all police should be armed, no exceptions.
  I wrote to Peter about this and, not for the first time, received a very rude response just because I dared to disagree with him. He's a rather strange chap.
• 
  Michael Michailidis

  An important overview of Britain’s moral crisis
  
  Those who enjoyed The Abolition of Britain will find this book a “second favorite.” It’s more restricted in its scope, and lacks some of the wittier prose, but it’s only after you read both of these books that you will understand the totality of the British - and to some extent Western - tragedy that Hitchens tackles.
• 
  Philip Baumbach

  An interesting book and worrying for Britain. The chapter on policing is particularly interesting.
• 
  Oli Turner

  #theabolitionofliberty by #peterhitchens
  published in 2004. An interesting #briefhistoryofcrime
  Much of what he argues in terms of the change in policing from prevention to reaction makes sense and it would be interesting to see an estimate of the cost of changing back to the old system. I would also agree with the need to remove bureaucracy and direct police attention to proper crimes rather than some of the time wasting nonsense they end up dealing with. During my university years I was not necessarily in favour of trial by jury but I think it is an important part of the system. The most controversial chapters of the book (gun control and capital punishment) were removed in the second edition but later reinstated. I have always appreciated the argument that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun and that criminals will always obtain guns illegally and stricter gun laws only impact law abiding people. I had thought that culturally relaxing gun laws in England wouldn’t be appropriate as it is not the same here as it is in the states. However, Hitchens puts forth a very compelling argument that the likelihood of increased gun crime is minimal and it is more likely to reduce crime if there is a risk that anyone could be carrying a weapon. It would certainly make criminals think twice before committing an offence. I am not convinced that capital punishment should be reinstated. In my mind life in prison is a better punishment (assuming that prisons are not cozy and comfortable) and it would allow wrongly convicted innocent people to be released in the event that new evidence comes to light.
  
• 
  Bill Taylor

  Firstly, I would say that this is an interesting and well written book and is well worth a read even though it was first published in 2003. It was originally entitled "A Brief History of Crime" and that's exactly what it is, though I can understand why the title was changed. Hitchens plots changes in crime and policing from the days of Bobbies on the beat but makes only passing attempts to be balanced.
  
  Hitchens believes and makes a strong case that the failings of the police and justice system in the UK go back to the policy of taking policemen off the beat and putting them in cars. Much of the evidence is compelling but far too one-sided. To this day, Hitchens believes that returning to the beat bobby is the correct course of action but unfortunately doesn't really make a case for how this could be done.
  
  I have to confess I am quite swayed by his arguments. Why has crime grown so much when society is so much better off and the need for crime would therefore seem to be reduced? Is it that the likelihood of being caught is getting lower, and if caught sentences are getting shorter or easier, due to the simple economics of running courts, judiciary, and prisons making justice less effective?
  
  Back in the days of the beat when the police could prevent crime, things were simpler. Nowadays the police are required to deal with so many more crimes, and quite complex ones too. Hate crimes, using mobile phones in cars, upskirting to name but a few. Laws designed to set standards of behaviour in society, but people keep expecting them to be enforced!
• 
  Yates Buckley

  There are aspects of lucid critical thinking about the UK justice system’s history that should inform many other situations around the world.
  
  There are also mixed in with this rational presentation, a series of unfounded grumpy perspectives that are unsupported and contradictory to the realistic process of social development of a country undergoing transformation heavily impacted by new technology and changes in social fabric.
  
  I would wish there was more imagination about a feasible future scenario that would defend the sort of liberty the author advocates. What should the author think about the current state of pervasive monitoring that is happening outside the justice system?
  
  Worth reading and thinking about where you disagree with the author.
• 
  Iain Hamill

  A lot of very good points!
• 
  Oolalaa

  14/20
• 
  Thomas

  Reddit Redux: published by an indie publisher
  (NOTE: I have used both versions of this book and therefore read the three chapters that only appear in some editions)
  Pros: his essential argument is that various actions to curb crime actually do not do so and therefore are primarily to restrict individual freedom and satisfy a liberal view of the world. In the former he makes many interesting points. His arguments on identity cards and his dissection of the Scarman report are persuasive. I know first hand ( I was formerly a local councillor) about the problems of “ fire brigade policing”. While I disagree with the authors view of gun control he makes fair points about how most bank robbers would be barred from legally owning guns anyway and Dunblaine could also have been prevented by senior police officers listening to warnings from their underlings that the individual in question should have his license revoked. His discussion of the death penalty is surprisingly calm demonstrating that while most crime wouldn’t be deterred the increased use of weapons in robberies does suggest fear of hanging did have some effect.
  Cons: his efforts to suggest these same things were some kind of state conspiracy are often weaker. On gun ownership he dismisses the evidence of America against gun ownership by insisting Americas high gun rate is purely a legacy of slavery without elaborating or justifying. Similarly he dismisses an obvious objection to the death penalty (that of innocent people being hanged) by simply arguing you could say the same of cars and by mentioning one individual who hypocritical on the matter. This means he has not brought down his opponents main argument and therefore those on the other side of the argument look at best misguided and his alternative explanations (that gun control is to give the state and monopoly and having no death penalty is to avoid admitting individuals have responsibility for their actions) seem petty at best conspiracy theory at worst. In addition he is at times contradictory, he complains about abuse of children then a page later bemoans teachers can no longer smack children, I’m aware some argue corporal punishment doesn’t have to be abusive but some clarification on where he draws the line would be helpful. In addition his casual sexism and ageism are uncalled for.
• 
  Ian Rodwell

  My review is at my website, please check it out here:
  
  
  https://workingwow.net/2022/06/02/boo...
  
  Thank you
• 
  Bryan

  The propositions found on page 295 should seriously and urgently be looked into! Mr Hitchens fleshes out those main points throughout the book. These imperatives include: preventative patrolling, disciplining in prisons,cutting out ludicrous red tape that hinders prosecution, scraping the Crown Prosecution Office and The Police Complaints Commission, breaking up of the police force into smaller units, restoration of the death penalty, higher educational requirement and minimum age for jurors, even the right to bare arms. In short Peter calls for the ancient regime to be restored.
  
  Why was a rather robust and well functioning policing system forsaken for a worse one? Peter exposes the corrosive effect of the 60's cultural revolution and its egalitarian, Marxist, Utopian fantasy. I highly recommend the book to those involved in any justice related position in the UK and any that resist the undoing of civilization. Peter cares a great deal about order and in so doing demonstrates his concern for the welfare of his country men.
  
• 
  Paul Dunphy

  Some detailed work in here on how the law and police have changed over the years. But in general Hitchens' writing is very judgmental and opinionated and he doesn't have a knack for writing about complex issues or complicated bits of evidence. Things are pretty much black or white with him so it does resemble a very long Daily Mail article. Although, it is an easy read that does provide some food for thought; worth a look if you have a vague interest in the topic.
• 
  J Kevin Whear

  Some good observations, good collation of information but usually too long on the narrative. I was hoping for more of a biblical bearing of the current justice system but instead I got personal opinions and an appeal to common sense.
  
• 
  Robharries

  A bit dated now, its perfectly fine and often interesting. However, the chapter on British gun rights, ownership, crime and prohibition of guns is what you should this book for.
• 
  C.J. Scott

  Peter is an excellent author, I listened to the Audible version with the additional chapters missing from the print edition. The great thing about this one is that Peter narrates it himself.
  
  He tackles the subject really well and using the force of logic, leaning on historical records and cutting through the egalitarian straw men of the left leaning elite, he makes an Excellent case for an improved model for liberty in England which in ways can be applied in other counties too.
  
  It is also really funny and eye opening in places too.. a worthy read / listen.