All over the world governments have a hard time dealing with the tricky question of ?law and order.? Governments of democratically-run states, that is? The others ? tyrants, military dictators, totalitarians ? have a simpler approach. They rule through brute force and the fear instilled in their populations by their lackeys, whether the military, often a band of thugs, who terrorise the population with complete immunity, or an equally fearsome secret police. In fact, this is of course a mockery of true law and order as there is an absence of freedom.

Democratically-elected governments, however, have a much more delicate job on their hands? They are answerable to the people who voted them into power and must be able to reassure them that all possible measures are being taken to assure their everyday security; that criminals are not laughing up their sleeves at the police as they evade capture; that prison sentences are long enough; that the country, in other words, is not ?going soft on crime?.

Traditionally, the more right-wing a government is, the harsher their approach to crime and punishment will be. They will emphasise deterrence and retribution, and will put the rights of victims first. They are the ones most likely to uphold the death penalty. Left-wing or liberal thinkers, on the other hand, will wish to see a respect for human rights extended to all, even the most hardened criminals and murderers.

They will emphasise the rights of the accused and are quick to find ?reasons? for crime in poverty, inequality, exclusion and other social ills. Their opposition to the death penalty is based on the fifth clause of the Universal Decla-ration of Human Rights, which condemns the use of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The death penalty is seen as the most extreme form of such treatment.

Governments of democracies are thus sitting on a tight-rope. On the one hand, the public demands results: that the police solve crimes, that the guilty are brought to justice, that prisons are secure. In a word, they want to be able to sleep soundly? On the other hand, defenders of human rights immediately raise their voices in protest whenever any kind of methods they consider repressive are used against criminals or suspected criminals by the authorities, whether it be the police, the army or law courts.

The present situation regarding terrorism is a good example of this problem. Western governments live in fear of an important terrorist attack similar to the ones in New York or more recently in Madrid. Their first duty is to protect their population. So, basing themselves on covert information gathered by the secret services they round up numerous suspects but fail to pin them down with enough evidence to justify their detention. The suspects are therefore released, with possible risks to society at large.

The latest attempt to deal with this problem in the UK has resulted in a sort of compromise whereby released suspects are electronically tagged, forbidden access to the Internet, forbidden to possess a mobile telephone and more or less kept under house arrest in some cases. The reaction to this has been a new outcry from the various human rights organisations.

Times are changing. The world is changing?.and in these new situations it is more difficult than ever to reconcile rights with security.