No civilized society should accept this light sentence for a horrible murder

Nov 19, 2020 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

Kaieteur News – I have never backed down in expressing how I feel about the deep convictions I have in my soul. I do not accept the abolition of the death penalty in general. I support the state executing animalistic humans who are more predatory than the predators in the jungle.
Some humans are unfit for civilized society. They are beyond redemption, a danger to civilized culture. Their uncivilized, bestial murders should be met with the state putting them to death. I say most unambiguously – I do not support the general abolition of the death penalty. Please see my column of Sunday, January 20, 2019, “I cannot support abolition of the death penalty in general.”
Before I proceed, let me be meticulous with my words. I never heard the name Abdool Subrati before I penned this column. I know no one by that name before the publication of this article. I know no one who is closely or remotely connected to Abdool Subrati. I say with extreme boldness, this country has been unfair and in a sickening way to this victim of a horrible homicide and his loved ones too.
I read that Subrati was an employee of the Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation. I hope the management and board raise their voices on how the judicial system treated its employee who met his death when bandits invaded his home and shot him in October 2016. Devon Chacon was charged for the murder of Subrati in 2016. On November 17, 2020, Justice Navindra Singh released Chacon for time served; meaning Chacon served three years not in jail but on remand.
Chacon pleaded guilty to murder that arose when he invaded Subrati’s home with other bestial predators like himself. According to the dead man’s relatives, the uncivilized gang was firing indiscriminately. There are things that are eerie about this court drama. The Chief Justice, Chancellor, DPP and Judicial Service Commission should order an investigation into this unusual circumstance.
My contention is pellucid – no country allows a criminal to be freed after serving three years on remand for murder committed during a home invasion. There can be no mitigating circumstances – scientific or interpretative – that can allow for such colossal leniency. In my long years living in this land, leniency is always present when there is a death by a fight and the accused appears to have acted in self defence. Nowhere in the world, bestial predators invade a home, kill the occupant and receive three years imprisonment.
I know the defence attorney personally. But a lawyer has to fight for his client so I doubt I will approach him. I know the judge personally when I was the vice president of the UG union and he did a pro-bono case for us that he won for us but Ralph Ramkarran, UG’s lawyer, advised the university on a course of action which I will not repeat here because when I did so a few years back, Ramkarran threatened libel.
A few years back I met Justice Navindra Singh in the Survival Supermarket and raised with him the discrepancies of his sentences. Please see my column of Tuesday, July 18, 2017, “An encounter with Justice Navindra Singh in the supermarket.” He said there was a sentencing guideline laid down by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). I do not think Justice Singh’s three years in the Chacon case can be situated in the CCJ’s guideline. I think it exists outside those guidelines if such exists.
I have a bad feeling about this case. I am too experienced in journalism so I know when a feeling of mine leads me to uneasy emotions. Here is an interesting part in the reporting of the case in the newspapers, “In his brief address, Justice Singh said that he did not have much to say as both sides (defence and prosecution) had extensive discussion regarding the matter and knew what has been decided upon.”
Very curious words indeed! I wanted to use a more forceful adjective to describe what the judge said but I think I will stay away from libel and contempt of court. I will ask readers to put a lot of weight on my chosen adjective, “curious.” So where do we go from here? Is this the end of the matter? Will Guyanese call for an investigation into what took place in that court? I will end on a macho note and you can condemn my chauvinism if you want to; that is your choice and it will not bother me. If Adbool Subrati was a friend or related to me, then that would have been another story in this God-forsaken country.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)