Peter Espeut ONE OF the rights guaranteed by our constitution is equality before the law. This means that whether prince or pauper, black or white, PNP or JLP, the same quality of justice should be available to all. This is what is meant by the saying "Justice is blind": it does not matter what you look like, what your occupation is, or what the state of your finances, you will be treated just like anybody else.
Of course it may be in the constitution, but we don't practice it. Jamaica as a colony and as an independent state is founded on inequality, and mere words in a document - even a national constitution - cannot change that. It takes a conscious and directed effort - and political will - to convert a society born in slavery into one with a level playing field, where everyone is equal before the law. This year will mark 170 years since slavery was abolished in Jamaica, and we still don't have a society where everyone is equal before the law; but in truth, for a long time the authorities weren't really trying.
LATEST SCANDAL
The former slave masters remained in power after Emancipation, and it took 110 years before the masses were allowed to vote. You would think that with more than 40 years of political independence under our belts, with sons of the soil at the helm, we would have more to show for it. The latest scandal (for me it is a scandal, if for nobody else) of gross inequality before the law, is the case of the recent arrest of policemen for murder. Ordinary citizens when suspected of murder are usually arrested "on suspicion" and are locked up without bail while investigations are under way to see if evidence can be found to arrest them. If the police have enough evidence, suspected persons are not usually served notice that the arresting officers are on their way, because of the fear they will fly the coop. Accused persons are approached by a number of heavily armed policemen, (and if they survive that confrontation) they are advised of their rights, put in handcuffs, taken into custody and locked up until they can be brought before a magistrate where bail is discussed.
My impression is that in cases of multiple murder, bail is usually opposed by the police and the prosecution. In this recent case, the information that the policemen were going to be arrested for multiple murder was released to the media days in advance. Then an appointment was made for the policemen to attend court on a particular day at a particular time where they were formally arrested, and bail was arranged at the same time so that the policemen did not have to wear handcuffs or spend a minute in jail. Decidedly this is not equality before the law. What could be the legal or moral justification for this special favoured treatment? Were the accused in possession of their travel documents at the time of their arrest? Was it the view that since the accused were police officers, their code of honour would not allow them to fly the coop? Was it that the images in the press of policemen in handcuffs would damage the reputation of the force? Was it that the prospect of policemen in jail - possibly in close proximity to some they might have arrested - would be demeaning to the force or its members? An explanation is required.
The sad side of this public display of inequality is that it has reinforced the public view that policemen are treated as if they are above the law. The military are governed by military law, and the rest of society - including the police - are considered "civilians" because they are under Civil Law. In Jamaica the police have removed themselves from the category "civilians", suggesting that they do not consider themselves under the same Civil Law as ordinary people. In any democratic country, if squads of policemen regularly kick down the doors to people's homes, regularly search people on the street or in their homes without a warrant, regularly round up large numbers of people into trucks without specific cause for "processing", regularly beat their captives, and regularly lock people up without charge in cruel and inhuman conditions, howls of protest about police brutality would already be raised. In any democratic country five or ten questionable police killings would raise a public hue and cry. In Jamaica triple digit police killings year after year have become normal, and persons or organizations that raise questions are vilified as trouble-makers and bleeding-heart liberals - and lovers of criminals.
In Jamaica, the police get away with acts of brutality that private citizens could not get away with, and which they could not get away with elsewhere. It seems so difficult to get cases against policemen brought to trial in Jamaica. If policemen use excessive force - even if it is captured on television - even excessive deadly force - even if policemen or policewomen beat civilians to death - they are rarely held accountable, reinforcing the feeling that they are above the law. No court, no commission of enquiry, no coroner's inquest seems to be able to overcome the logistics: statements - or whole files - will be lost, and pages will become missing from log books - or whole books will be burnt in mysterious fires - and policemen who are essential witnesses in the trials of their colleagues will be unavailable, or will refuse to give evidence.
If they cannot name the policeman who pulled the trigger or swung the baton, the prosecution seems unwilling to name all the policemen present at the time as accessories. The system works in favour of police offenders, and so some people end up more equal before the law than others. I do not know whether the policemen recently arrested are guilty or not; that is for a court to decide. Justice will only appear to be done if there is no hint of favouritism - or prejudice - shown to police accused. Should there be a verdict of "Not Guilty", there should be no procedural bias which could raise any questions.
I take note that the Prime Minister has announced that a new organization will be formed to investigate police killings. I and others have been calling for this over many years, and the announcement is welcome. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Peter Espeut is a sociologist and executive director of an environment and development NGO.
