Peter Espeut
Peter Espeut
THIS WEEK as I travelled back to Jamaica seated next to a JDF corporal, I got a full dose of venom on behalf of Jamaicans for Justice (which has my support, but of which I am not a member) and other human rights advocates.
"You support criminals," he said. "When a criminal is killed by the security forces there is an uproar; when a policeman or soldier on duty is killed by a gunman, not a sound is heard," was the general drift of his gripe. It is a widely held view. "You human rights activists support gunmen and murderers." Definitely not so, I failed to convince him. As we left the aircraft he was more confirmed in his views than before. I must try again; and I must hasten to say that the arguments expressed here are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of JFJ or any other human rights group.
CRIMINALITY
Murder and wounding is criminality, no matter who does it. No sensible person, no good citizen supports criminality, no matter who does it. To suggest that JFJ or any human rights activist supports criminals is ludicrous. Every human being no matter who they are has the right to his or her life and bodily integrity. Persons who abuse that human right no matter who they are should be condemned by human rights activists; and no matter who they are they should be apprehended and dealt with according to law. Persons who abuse the human rights of others should have certain of their human rights taken away temporarily or permanently. That is justice!
Who do Jamaicans expect to apprehend wrongdoers and ensure they are dealt with according to law? Our security forces and our courts, of course! Our security forces take an oath to uphold justice and the constitutional rights of Jamaicans. There is a set procedure how our security forces and our courts may deal with murder and wounding and all wrongdoing: first, before a person is deemed to be guilty and punished, the guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If there is reasonable doubt, then the person must go free, because it is better to free a guilty person than to convict and punish an innocent person. This is what we call the "presumption of innocence": each person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. A person's human rights are so important that we must be reasonably certain of guilt before the judgment is made to take them away. And there are rules about how this proof can be accomplished: the sort of evidence which is admissible, the sort of conclusions which may be drawn, etc. And for certain offences, only a jury may judge that a person is guilty. All this we call a "fair trial".
Everyone guilty or innocent has a right to a fair trial. You see, you can't know whether a person is innocent or guilty unless and until they have had a fair trial. If I were suspected of a crime, this is what I would want, and I am sure you would too. The process of determining guilt or innocence cannot be arbitrary and capricious. It must be as considered and as objective as possible. When policemen or soldiers decide that persons in front of them are guilty, and decide to be the judge, jury and executioners, this is not justice; indeed, it is the exact opposite, and is a breach of the persons' human rights. Indeed, it is a worse breach of human rights than any crime the persons may have committed, because policemen and soldiers are sworn to do things according to law.
HIGHER STANDARD OF BEHAVIOUR
The criminal swore no oath to keep the law. A higher standard of behaviour is expected from those who take an oath to uphold the law, and it is a worse crime they commit when they break their oath. There are rules about how and when policemen and soldiers may shoot their guns at human beings, even at the enemy. The rules of engagement are clear, and our security forces know them.
My corporal friend did not think much of the rules of engagement, or the presumption of innocence, or the notion of a fair trial, and asked me if I had ever had a gun pointed at me; he wanted to know what I would do. I asked him if he knew what policemen in the UK or Canada do in such a situation; he did not answer. We human rights activists do not support wrongdoers. If you believe that someone is guilty, put him on trial and prove it! No policeman or soldier is competent to determine the guilt of innocence of a suspect; that is for a court of law to do.
The Rev. Peter Espeut is a sociologist and a Roman Catholic deacon.
