Devon Dick

YOUNG NICHOLA Wong got Letter of the Day for her letter 'Why the good must suffer for the bad' (April 5) in response to my article 'Keep the children in school' (April 3). She must be commended for getting Letter of the Day from among so many good letters, including that of Earl McKenzie of the University of the West Indies, who suggested that the media should imitate China and highlight the punishment and not the crime as part of our crime-fighting strategy.

I suspect that Nichola got Letter of the Day, not for arguing that the good must suffer for the bad, which was not the intention of the school administration in sending home students who wore bling shoes, but for her statement that "locking them out of school may have been drastic, but have you noted the behaviour of present-day young adults?" I agree that it was drastic and that was the point of my article. I said, "The punishment was excessive for the crime committed."

Nichola asked, "What kind of message are you, a leader in the church community sending?" The message I am sending is that punishment must fit the crime. The Bible, in stating "an eye for an eye ..." is saying that the punishment must be equal to the crime. We should therefore, never cut off someone's hand for stealing a mango. And based on that principle, I wrote an article entitled, 'Child Abuse and outrageous judgement' (April 10) because I believed that the punishment of a three-year suspended sentence, for a 32-year-old media employee, who was convicted of two counts of carnal abuse of a 13-year-old, was inadequate for, or should I say not commensurate with the crime committed.

Really disappointed

Nichola also bemoaned that the problems of the society started when "the predominantly good in society started making excuses for the ills". I count you as one among the good and so I am therefore disappointed that you are making excuses for what you already admitted were 'drastic' actions. The school administration must be guided by the principles of justice and should not be excessive in administering justice otherwise they will not be any better than the wearers of bling shoes.

There was another letter writer, Evelyn Gyles, re: 'Disappointed in you, Rev. Dick' (April 9), which was a horse of a different colour, in that she said, "Rev. Dick does not see anything wrong with students breaking school rules regarding footwear." But what I said was, "I was pleased with the response of the education officer who said that school rules must be obeyed, but that the school administration could have handled things differently. I agree with her."

Cultural preference

Gyles concluded, "Rev. Dick's article not only fell short of sound reasoning as evidenced by his detention room an punishment, but his reference to Jesus' sandals suggests that he did not give this column his usual erudite thought." Gyles' argument seems to suggest that the only appropriate punishment for children wearing bling shoes is to have them sent home prematurely from classes.

In addition, the reference to Jesus' sandals was to show that footwear is a cultural preference. And while we can appreciate that the school is building a culture which requires a certain dress code, this is not transgressing on the Ten Com-mandments. It is a cultural matter which should not be elevated to a mortal sin deserving of severe punishment. On the other hand, I believe that a child who is violent or abusive to another child or teacher, should be excluded from that school, be it temporarily or permanently.

I maintain that the wearing of bling shoes to school must be punished justly and not excessively.