Chris Huhne MP, the Liberal Democrat party home affairs spokesman (who I've met), says that since the Labour party were elected to power in 1997 they have created over 4000 new criminal offences.

Over four thousand new criminal offences is a dizzying statistic & sure many of the new offences created are rather ridiculous such as 'banning everything from the sale of game birds killed on a Sunday' or could be covered by existing laws such as 'causing a nuclear explosion'. But even with the trivial offences which this government has created there's a very serious point concerning these offences being created; if there are more criminal offences then there will be more criminals, this gives government more of an excuse in locking people up & therefore government is more interfering authoritarian.

For all those who bark on about the 'rule of law' this in fact illustrates the major flaw in the rule law. You might bark on that if you break the law you should be prosecuted but tell me do you think that people should be prosecuted for 'swimming the deck of the Titanic without permission of a government minister'? Thing is the 'rule of law' isn't only flawed it's a fallacy, because the whole deal with the 'rule of law' is that anybody who is caught breaking the law must be prosecuted, yet with Britain's tradition of law abiding folk & with all the uber conservative law & order types might banging on about 'the rule of law', not all crimes are prosecuted are they? Why aren't all those who have committed criminal offences not being prosecuted? Well it might be that there are far too many criminal offences & the courts can't handle all cases. Yes another consequence of having far too many criminal offences & particularly trivial criminal offences is that the court system will falter under the weight of criminal offences being prosecuted. This is obviously why the prosecution of certain criminal offences are prioritised, which proves the 'rule of law' to be a fallacy.

Even with the prioritisation of certain criminal offences an individual who tampers with eggs can find themselves facing prison time & yet an individual who has perpetrated a violent assault will get a slap on the wrists. As far as I'm concerned anybody tampering with bird eggs should never see the inside of a prison, court or police station; but a person who commits a violent assault should be viewing the world from inside a prison cell for a very long time. If it was up to me I would have far fewer criminal offences & those criminal offences would reflect crimes infringing individual liberty (rape, murder, assault) & against property rights (robbery, vandalism, fraud), then the 'rule of law' might in fact no longer be a fallacy because those who deserve to be prosecuted would be prosecuted.

Its pretty simple the less criminal offences there are the more the courts will be freed up to prosecute those who have committed real crimes. Remember under the system I & many libertarians have proposed there wouldn't be things like drug prohibition, which would free up the criminal justice system somewhat.

I've always been very consistent that there should be far less criminal offences but far tougher punishments for those who do get caught in committing real crimes against person & property.

Chris Huhne might be a bit of a twat but he's right that there are far too many criminal offences in this country, which in my opinion is a great danger in regards to individual liberty.