Double jeopardy?
Most of us adhere to some basic moral principles that we take for granted and which, if we are observed violating, can result in all manner of moral, legal, conceptual and practical difficulties and confusion.
It appears to me that in the case of the two policemen who were promoted after it was proven in a court of law that they had tortured a 14-year-old youth by burning his testicles at the Leonora police station, we have this violation of basic principles and should pay keen attention to the lessons it teaches to both public and private management.
There are fundamental natural law/human rights principles, e.g. the other party to a dispute must be given a hearing; one should not be a judge in one’s own case; one should not be tried twice for the same offence (double jeopardy), which have more or less become part of the psyche of the reasonably educated person. And through the centuries, many organizational principles have also emerged, the following being some I consider relevant to the subject at hand.
Discipline must be just, but sufficiently severe to meet the requirements of the situation; in taking disciplinary action, the intent of the offender should be considered, discipline should be constructive and leave the offender willing and anxious to improve his/her actions rather than feeling resentful, the rules must be reasonable, fair and lawful and known to the employees and they should be uniform and the penalties consistently applied.
An employee may be dismissed, demoted or suspended for immoral conduct; unprofessional conduct; dishonesty; incompetence; addiction to the use of controlled substances; failure or refusal to perform the normal and reasonable duties of the position; conviction of a felony or of any misdemeanor involving moral turpitude; fraud in securing appointment and drunkenness on duty((http://www.scribd.com/doc/19570096/
Principles-of-Discipline#scribd). Because the authorities failed to properly implement these commonplace rules, its promotion of the officers, the general response to the outrage that met the promotions and the attempt to explain and/or extricate themselves from the promotions have resulted in absolute confusion.
Upon the promotions of the policemen being made public, Mr. Clement Rohee sought to distance himself and possibly his party from them. I argued last week that he cannot extricate himself from responsibility and that by doing so, he sent the clear message that he believed all was not well with the promotions and that there was no advantage to be gained from being associated with them.
If he has been reported correctly, not long after, the cabinet secretary and head of the presidential secretariat, Dr. Roger Luncheon, sought to disallow Minister Rohee such an easy exit by providing us with the following explanation.
“I think there was a satisfaction (in the cabinet) with the commission’s contention that the law had taken its course… The two policemen were no longer subjected or subject to disciplinary or legal challenges for the torture charges that were laid against them. It is understood that the commission acted from that perspective in going ahead.” To reinforce cabinet’s agreement with the decision of the commission, Dr. Luncheon even drew the public’s attention to the fact that one of the policemen had a “superb”, “unblemished” record.
But it would appear that, perhaps being the PPP’s general secretary, Mr. Rohee was much more informed of the public position his party and government wanted to take. Thus, in came the attorney general.
“The notion… being peddled in some sections of the media that the Government … concurred with these promotions is without any foundation. The view of the Government expressed through Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr. Roger Luncheon, related to the procedure in respect of the promotions and was not a comment in respect of the merits or demerits of the promotions. In short, it was confined to the decision making process and not the decision.”
Of course, given Dr. Luncheon’s position above, the AG’s statement is gobbledygook and indicative of the confusion that arises and the course one is forced to take when one unthinkingly dismisses long established principles.
Both the Police Service Commission and by HPS’s explanation the cabinet were attempting to rely on principles with which in normal circumstances most of us would agree: a person should not be punished twice for the same crime and disciplinary action should leave room for rehabilitation. But reliance on these principles only makes sense if in the first place the punishment actually fitted the crime!
Sgt. Steven Rea of Bexleyheath police station in London grabbed a drunken 14-year-old by the throat and branded him a ‘horrible little individual’. His barrister hailed the policeman an ‘exemplary character’ and claimed that all he did was try to pick the boy up. “He didn’t slap him, or punch him, or kick him. … He used – ironically – too little force rather than too much”.
The inspector at his station told the court earlier that Rea, who was handed a six month conditional discharge and ordered to pay costs of £500, was “a credit to my team. … I certainly would have him back anytime.”
But the directorate of professional standards claimed that “The custody sergeant (Rea) has responsibility for the welfare of those within the custody suite especially the young and vulnerable. The public has a right to expect that anyone brought into a custody suite will be treated in an appropriate manner. Steven Rea let everyone down when he assaulted this boy and it is right that he has been convicted at court.”
With Rea’s relatives weeping openly in court, his lawyer claimed “This finding will undoubtedly bring his career to an end”.
In the context of Guyana, the public perceives – rightly in most cases – hanky-panky when a case is dismissed because the witnesses failed to attend court, as was the situation in the criminal case against the two officers. But added to this, a high court judge concluded that the two did torture the youth and that the government should pay damages of $6.5 million.
For the regime to appeal to the public by way of the principle that the officers responsible for inflicting horrendous injuries on a teenage boy should not be punished twice (double jeopardy) and have been rehabilitated is an absurdity.
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
