Arguing for the rule of law is not supporting criminality

Oct 01, 2008 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
Godfrey Skeete, in his letter captioned, “Once we justify criminality, the breeding ground for criminals will remain fertile,” posits the query, “I wonder how many of these ‘brave’ campaigners ever came under gunfire in their lives, and how many would have gone after people of the ilk of Rawlins with the intention of capturing them.”

Well, for Mr. Skeete’s information, I have come under gunfire in campaigning for the integrity of my country, and I have gone out after criminals with the intent to capture them, albeit none with the ascribed brutal reputation of a ‘Fine Man’.

That is how the law, the constitution and the Police Act require members of the force to operate.
The argument is not that they should endanger theirs and the lives of innocents in the judgements they make in this process.

Those considerations are crucial, imperative in the decision to use or not to use deadly force.
The argument is that their mindset in this pursuit should always be consistent with the legal imperatives under which they operate.

What Mr. Skeete advocates in his question is that law enforcement ignore the precepts of the law and regulations as they relate to the execution of their duties.

That is an emotional argument with absolutely no foundation, other than it sounds tough and supports the leaps in logic he embarks upon in his letter.

Once again we see this disconnect in the interpretation of demands for the administration of justice in Guyana to parallel what is inscribed in law and statutes.

Once again we witness these examples of judgmental automatism, whereby critique of the methodology of law enforcement is being facetiously interpreted as evidence of support of criminality.

These are the tactics always employed by those more interested in silencing the messenger rather than dissecting and dealing with the message.

The most important message that can be sent to the young is that the law commands this land they live in, and its purpose is to modify the behaviours of each and every one of us, regardless of our social or occupational positions or status.

In that context, the argument that people cautioning law enforcement to be less influenced by sectoral incitement for fatal apprehension of suspects is supportive of criminality is utterly ludicrous.

The same kinds of argument crop up to silence those opposed to the death penalty. To wit, they care for the perpetrators more than they care for the victims.

The same kinds of argument crops up to silence those who lobby tirelessly on behalf of the poor and indigent. To wit, they are bleeding heart liberals and are encouraging people to be lazy.

The pattern has become so bloody known and predictable that its utility has migrated from its birthplace in right-wing political platforms, and wended its way into the arguments of third world politics.

Although the geography and physical characteristics of those making it might have changed, the motives are, nevertheless, the same.

Look, we can argue about what is right and wrong from sun up to sun down, and we will remain at the same positions we were at when we began.

Who is right and wrong has to be determined by what the law says. If we are unwilling to abide by what is constitutional, by what is in statutes, by what is legally recommended, then our rantings against criminality are just so much excrement of the male quadruped graminivorous member of the bovine species.

It is unfounded to claim that in Guyana we have fallen into two camps, one pro-criminal and the other anti-criminal. In fact, what is more descriptive of the two camps we have evolved into is: (1) those who argue for the convenient abandonment of the rule of law in specific claims.

They launch these ridiculous accusations using broad generalities and ABC grammatical interpretations of the letters those they do not agree with write. A comment that asserts “Fine Man is a Hero” can legitimately be construed to be supportive of criminality.

And so, too, can a similar comment made about criminal vigilanteeism.
But to claim that comments that express disapproval of the number of fatal arrests of suspects is supportive of criminality introduces us to aninterpretation of language yet to be taught in schools.

 Any society that advocates automatic agreement with whatever is done by officialdom is, by that very fact, dictatorial, especially when such actions involve the taking of the lives of citizens, regardless of what they might have done.

If we do not question how the powers of the law affect the least or most despicable among us, then we need to be very fearful about its effects upon the best among us.

The young cannot be nurtured into doing the right thing by mixed messages coming from adults and institutions in our society.

When an innocent young man, whose only crime is being on the road in his neighbourhood — a behaviour as natural to both urban and rural Guyana as mango and genip seasons — is picked up in a police dragnet, taken into a lockups and processed as a common criminal, he is not likely to believe in the doctrine that we are all equal under the law.

It says a lot for our retrogression that we are approving of practices that gained notoriety in Soweto, South Africa, is condemned by the publication of the ruling regime when it occurs in Palestine, and is still the focus of civil rights activism in the United States of America.

We, in and of Guyana, seem to be running helter skelter into the dark ages of civil and human rights.

Robin Williams

---

---