In dealing with crime, as with so many other issues, the arguments seem always to move from one extreme to the other. On the one hand, there is the conservative majority who insists that the most draconian measures be used. They would have us hang as many murderers as possible, and give to the police even more power than they already have.

On the other hand, are the progressive reformers who promote the liberal tradition that insists on the right of every alleged criminal to due process under law, regardless of the ability of the state to carry it out. This is where I think that the problem really lies. If we assume that, on average, there is one murderer for every five people killed for the year, then there would be some 300 people out there who need to be caught and brought to justice. How on earth are we going to do that by conventional means?

In the final analysis, justice must be regarded as a practical matter. I am against capital punishment, not because it is immoral. At any rate, it is, as John Stuart Mills pointed out, probably more humane to execute a human being than to commit him for the rest of his life to 'a living tomb'; especially if that tomb is a Jamaican prison. The evidence shows that it is not a practical solution and its introduction does nothing to reduce the crime rate.

No intention of being caught

In 19th century England, where even pickpockets were hanged publicly, other pickpockets would find the spectacle an excellent opportunity at which to ply their trade among the excited spectators. The only thing that acts as a true deterrent is where the likelihood of being caught and convicted is very great. Nobody chooses to commit murder because they will end up in prison for life rather than be executed. They do so because they have no intention of being caught.

My suggestion is that we remove the death penalty immediately and then introduce laws that give the courts more authority to deny bail and to use evidence of witnesses who are deceased or who cannot be found. Even trial by jury is something which we might have to suspend for a while. In fact, I agree with the sentiment of F. Lee Bailey, who once said that if he were innocent, he would prefer to be tried by court martial than by a jury. A tribunal of trained jurists would be far more likely to peruse evidence thoroughly and produce a rational decision than any jury; and jurors are more susceptible to bribery, since their authority is temporary, than would be judges, who have careers at stake.

The argument about a man being innocent until proven guilty is a grand sophistry of English law. The French, I think, have a far more rational approach. The State charges you for a crime because it believes that it has evidence to prove that you are guilty of the crime. If you were held to be innocent by the State, then you would not have been charged by its agents. That being said, you should be given wide consideration by the courts to establish your innocence.

Permanent body for judicial reviews

What we need in Jamaica now, is a moderate form of martial law. Over the years, we have given the police more power and taken it away from the courts by insisting on mandatory sentencing for some crimes. I do not think the police need any more power than they now have, but the courts probably do. Alongside the courts should be a permanent body carrying out judicial review of decisions made. Such a body could be made up of retired members of the Bar drawn even from other Commonwealth countries.

The law really should not be a shackle which enslaves us to disorder carried out by those who exploit our decency. We must try to maintain the spirit of the Western tradition while at the same time realising that we do not yet have the means available to the modern state to maintain the ideals towards which we must continue to strive.

I am, etc,

R. HOWARD THOMPSON

roi_anne@hotmailncom

Rockton, Waltham

Mandeville PO

Via Go-Jamaica