A colleague of mine, a well-respected barrister and professor of criminal law, recently discussed the concept of torture with a class of undergraduate law students. The young people on this course, at a top redbrick university, are among the highest intellectual school-leavers in the country. These same young people will become the lawyers, academics, professionals and future leaders of our country. Upon being asked whether torture could ever be acceptable, the class discussion went in a direction that defied the natural intelligence and legal knowledge of these students. Instead of discussing the rule of law or the morality of torture, they focussed on potential situations in which torture would be acceptable in their eyes. One student spoke of torturing a person suspected of placing a bomb under a school bus. Another raised the issue of terrorism and the use of torture. None of the young people reflected on the rights of a detainee. Neither did the students discuss the fundamental concept of absolute prohibitions within the legal system. My colleague appeared perplexed, not least due to these being final year students for whom such concepts should have become entrenched in their thinking.
Torture may be viewed as too emotive a subject for young people to deal with coldly and rationally, especially in light of the events of recent years. It may even be argued that these young people are no different in their attitudes towards torture than many adults in our society. However, other students faced with a different dilemma involving civil liberties responded in a similar manner, exposing their lack of regard for rights. The young people were given the following scenario:
A prison officer is killed in the courtyard where 100 inmates were having recreational time. The CCTV camera shows that one prisoner remained in the furthest corner of the yard, while the other 99 attacked and murdered the officer. The CCTV images do not show any features of the lone man who distanced himself from the crime. Every prisoner, when interviewed, says that he is innocent.
The students decided that all 100 prisoners should be convicted of murder, despite the fact that one inmate was clearly innocent of this charge. None of the young people were prepared to apply their legal knowledge and understanding in such a manner as to acquit all 100 prisoners in order to avoid convicting an innocent man. The students' concept of a miscarriage of justice was that the guilty may be allowed to go free rather than worrying about convicting the innocent.
Some may argue that these students are not representative of young people. They may point to recent student activism on civil liberties, including through demonstrations outside the G20 summit or involvement with the Convention on Modern Liberty. However, despite the number of young people attending university increasing dramatically over the past decade, the number of students involved in this type of political activism has dropped significantly. The number of young people attending, or even organising, the G20 demonstrations pales in comparison with the students involved with the 2000 and 2001 May Day protests, despite the stronger significance of these issues for today's youth. Similarly, the discourse surrounding the proposed 42 day detention plan sorely lacked coherent or sustained voices of our young people or student groups.
There was a time when students of all backgrounds and disciplines were at the forefront of campaigns against erosion of liberties and miscarriages of justice. Maybe today's young people have become so used to their freedoms being curtailed and their rights being removed that many of them are no longer able to engage with issues regarding civil liberties. The erosion of our civil liberties has seeped into their collective conscience, leaving those young people who disagree marginalised on the sidelines, often branded as anarchists or troublemakers. This is something that must be addressed before this generation of young people become the leaders of this country, because by then it will be too late.