Retrogression of humanism and lack of due process within our society

Jun 09, 2009 Letters

Dear Editor,
I write in reference to the article published in the newspapers on June 7th, about the young chain snatcher.
This occurrence is surely a reason for concern within our society. It depicts the retrogression of humanism and lack of due process within our society.
As reported, it is undisputed that young man approached Ms Butcher and demanded and subsequently stole her jewelry.
However, I’m sure anyone who has a heart, breathes oxygen and has some semblance of intelligence would conclude that how this young man met his demise surely was unjust.
What’s more shocking was the lack of concern for the young man’s life after he was shot.

There were no medical professionals present that could have diagnosed his injuries untreatable, so why wasn’t he taken to the hospital? Unfortunately there was a lot of ambiguity amongst bystanders on the right thing to do because the young man did in fact commit a crime.
Regardless of what he did prior to being shot, the right thing to do was the humane thing, which was to take the individual to the hospital. It’s quite obvious to me that most bystanders greatly misrepresented the proverbial saying “an eye for an eye”.

How callous were these bystanders to think that a chain snatcher was condemned to death. I’m sure we still have smart police officers within the force that would of been trained in the proper protocol to follow when dealing with an injured perp. It’s is not my intention to support Paul’s criminal act whatsoever. He obviously is a contributor to the dysfunctional aspect of our society; he made the adult decision to rob Ms Butcher.
No one could guarantee that Paul wouldn’t have graduated to higher levels of crime, but he will never be afforded the opportunity to possibly reform from his criminal ways.

Reform of criminals to many in this country seems to be a waist of time, better to kill them, right?
How can we cure if we are reluctant to try the medicine? This young man was just 20 years old.
Howbeit, the issue here is whether the punishment suits the crime. The brand of vigilante justice meted out to young Paul was undeserving of the crime he committed.
Vigilanteism cannot replace rule of law because there are no controls to it. Crime is crime, but the law suitably dispatches justice in accordance to the degree of crime committed.
With vigilanteism there is no modulation and justice is decided upon capriciously.
Crime and punishment ideally should be decided upon by the rule of the Courts; the correct institution charged with that task.

Sadly our society has degraded to the point where there is no faith in the justice system so vigilanteism pervades within our society.
Certainly our forefathers are tumbling in their graves at how our so called modern society has run amok.
In closing, Guyana certainly has a long way to go in regaining the faith of its people.
If that faith were present in our country Saturday June 6th Gavin Paul might have lived and would have received the correct punishment for the crime he committed.
And maybe just maybe the system would have worked.
C. Marks

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News