We have a politician who when in Opposition was bellowing for the rope. Once ensconced in Government, all sort of reasons were proffered as to why the rope should be suspended.
Pratt and Morgan was offered, so that those who had spent five years behind bars in the death cells already, got lucky no matter how heinous their crime. With regard to the others, despite the Constitution, we were reminded that we were a signatory to Amnesty International and that to go ahead would be to sully our reputation, and, worst of all, preclude us from getting the few farthings of help here and there.
Good! So we elect a Government and a new Attorney General and we wait. Is he a member of Amnesty International or a sympathiser? Does he have the stomach to fight the battle? Is he a Joshua to fit the battle of the rope?
Last Monday’s DAILY NATION Editorial called for a declaration of soul “now”. Will we get it, and will he mean it? Will our Honourable Attorney General offer “level heads” to the rope of anyone found clearly guilty?
Good! If his response to the appeal for the rope is positive, what other obstacles will he have to overcome? The proponents of Amnesty International will get on his case. Formidable members of the legal fraternity will mount a rearguard action second to none, to protect the rights of the killers.
Their argument! There was no intent to kill anyone. Tell that to the marines! Their action resulted in people’s death.
Will the state show testicular fortitude and defend the wishes of the families and friends and the wider public and say “enough is enough”?
Chicken Galore in Bank Hall was a recent case of this new modus operandi. Fellows are operating American gangster style. Go into an establishment, rob the good folk and torch the place with an incendiary in order to create a diversion, then flee.
This time six innocent people, now beginning to taste sweet life, have died. Justice would be even-handed, if we were to commend the poisoned chalice to their lips – I mean their necks. To do otherwise would be a travesty of justice.
The state cannot and I will not condone handing the perpetrators over to an angry mob when they are caught. The law must prevail and the law has the necessary provisions to deal with the situation.
There are in our island a few soft-hearted and feeble-minded people who would say: “Cud dear, gi dem a break, lock dem up and feed dem fuh 20 years. I will pay the bill wid my taxes, even if yuh raise the VAT to 20 per cent. Gi the surviving fam’ly a little smalls and dat will be uh exampul to others.”
But what about the children, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters of the innocent deceased, when the Government dillydallies? Can that ease their pain? I am sure that such a pain would bring a different response from those who may be thinking level-headed if the victims were their own daughter or wife.
A jailing does not prevent stealing. It is a punishment. If a man marries two women, he is incarcerated or fined and the law deals with him (sin or no sin).
But I do not think that our Government will “buck” the human rights people. After all, murder is not human rights’ only bête noir. There are other human rights that are of major concern.
Once a lawyer appeals to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, under the law, as long as Barbados is a signatory to that court, he is bound to be given leave to appeal. If he prolongs the trial for five years, then Pratt and Morgan will have their say. Poor Attorney General!
“We expect legislation to conform to public opinion, not public opinion to legislation.” (Report Of The Wickersham Commission.)
• Harry Russell is a retired banker.
