I don’t mean that the “professional”, recidivist criminals are actually choosing law school to qualify themselves as attorneys.
Though there just might be some qualified law professionals who are tempted to try illegal things because they can extricate themselves from any possible negative consequences, I’m referring to those individuals who have decided on a life of crime and who, often guided by their legal counsel’s advice, briefs and defence- performance in courts, educate themselves as to possible acquittal scenarios and possibilities. Before they execute their criminal business.
These fellows study the prosecutors’ shortcomings and inexperience; the intimidation of witness, the magistrates and judges’ strengths and weaknesses, even loopholes or technicalities in the law- or recourse to constitutional protection. They are thus prepared to break laws, commit crimes, soft or hardcore over and over. They feel secure in their counsel’s legalistic comfort.
Recall a few weeks ago the university fellows being “sentenced” to a rather soft “friendly” rehabilitative penalty for armed robbery. The state has appealed.
The magistrate would probably proffer her own reasons for such a light sentence but career criminals would likely take note with smiles.
I tire of repeating how prosecutorial lapses, even judges’ errors result in the guilty going free. The accused are found not guilty when all concerned know that they are not innocent. I’m told that our inherited system of justice is the best we have even if we have to fashion modifications after case experiences and legislative decisions.
But now I offer two relevant “distractions’.
Justice, Law, America, Guyana
Definitions would suggest that “justice” has to do with interpreting and administering what a society’s laws (sometimes customs and practices) mean. Judicial arbitrators dispense decisions in legal disputes and when persons are accused of wrong-doing.
Moral judgements and official discretion often attend out of court, sometimes societal hearings and traditional trials. I suppose even religious values and teachings attend. But this I – and the seasoned criminals– have been taught: the Western Justice Systems, because of some real or perceived sense of being more “civilized” than the more “primal” ways of deciding disputes, dictate that any doubt must favour the accused. They had a dictum about it being better “that ten guilty persons go free than mistakenly convicting one innocent person.” Western justice has also long condemned taking the life of even the most savage serial killer. Christians will pray forgiveness for that murderous sinner. My career criminals are aware of these “judicial values.”
The laws in the USA tend to kerfuffle my simple layman’s mind. But they tend to catch up with wrongdoers, no matter how long it takes. Once the suspect- crooks are caught and prosecuted numerous American-style legal opportunities are available to even the guiltiest accused. Plea-bargains are supposedly meant to benefit both the accused crooks, the prosecution and the people. American justice will be served. (Sometimes on dubious platters.) One reads, very recently, about James Holmes, the wacko American who shot dead twelve in a movie theatre massacre three years ago. The jury gave him a life sentence instead of the penalty of death demanded by the prosecution who knew that Holmes wanted to kill hundreds in the cinema had his weapons not malfunctioned. I’m betting that that dude, who also planted bombs at his home for investigating police, knew he could plead “insanity” and that an expert psychiatrist would speak about his schizophrenia, and most likely the jury would be “moral” and uncertain. He was right after a lengthy trial, a penalty and mitigation phase, he was allowed to live and exist at American taxpayers’ expense.
Guyanese “big ones” – John Sampson, Edul Ahmad, Sonny Baldeo (?) and Pilot Lall are all “enjoying” the American justice system’s pre-sentence investigation report probation procedures, and all the other phases available to them. Freedom, however limited, will remain theirs until some aspect of that system exacts “justice.”
Back in Georgetown Carol Sooba is now seeking numerous injunctions and declarations and writs of summons as well as claims- all available to her as she seeks to overturn the Minister’s decision which sent her packing. One dismissal/acquittal that captured my attention some months ago had to with Magistrate Leron Daly freeing a fellow who stole eight and a half million dollars’ worth of cell phones and related accessories. The Police/Prosecution’s allegations were largely known to be factual, but yet the fellow walked away. Why? Defence counsel argued that some key evidence was missing. Then the learned lady magistrate also decided that the “key element of knowledge” was missing from the poor prosecution’s case. The element of knowledge!
I submit, your honours my readers, that young clever criminals know why they throw away the weapons and ganja as the police approach. Even motorists errant, can defy some police prosecutions. Wonder still, about our crime rate?
Jagdeo’s hostile “support”?
“We have an obligation to the people of this country – on both sides of the house – to ensure a better life for all; we will never ever seek to remove benefits from people whatever the Constituencies, or whether they voted PPP or APNU; the Opposition is urging government to fulfill the promises it made in its manifesto”.
The above are excerpts of Bharrat Jagdeo’s brief opening address in Parliament recently. I will not even comment on the standard he is holding the government to. (I only wonder at the incomprehensible mindset of his supporters.)
“Once Mr Jagdeo was elected leader of the opposition I wrote him inviting him to talks, because as Leader of the Opposition he has certain constitutional responsibilities”: President Granger.
There are citizens who hope that in between all those sentiments the promise(s) of initiatives for engaging the opposition and Jagdeo’s utterance about “working with the government”, might rest hope for American Representative Bryan Hunte’s “loyal opposition” – as the British governance system once hoped for.
Cheddi Jagan once offered Forbes Burnham critical support. Could Jagdeo’s hostile support suffice? Even if we try hard to ignore the costly greedy mischief of his regime now being discovered; even if we knowingly overlook Rohee’s contemptuous Monday tantrums and the PPP’s responses to government’s exposes, can this nation expect any constructive criticism and assistance from Jagdeo’s Opposition?
Even as I try to place positively, the Government-Opposition Budget First Day Parliamentary consultations consequent upon the Administration’s blunder, I still ask you-all to tell me.
Ponder…
*1) I agree Stabroek, recent sentences for child-rape were insultingly laughable. Frankly Speaking, I recommend floggings!
*2) I understand there is some “collateral damage” consequent upon some reduction of pay, demotions and dismissals. Seek wise counsel, government.
*3) Norman Whittaker, First People’s Defender captured more than one full page to prosecute his PPP government’s case and Ravi Dev is using his own name again.
*4) Whatever happened to former Minister Jenny Webster?
*5) One knowledgeable informed me that the revelations about the massive gold smuggling were publicized too soon. Some big ones can still cover up.
*6) There is a big “Kwe-Kwe” in New York tonight)
‘Til next week!
(Comments? allanafenty@yahoo.com)
