You are hereAnand's Collection / How many more must die?

How many more must die?


By anand - Posted on 22 April 2007

Deputy Chief Magistrate Mark Wellington did the correct thing by dismissing the case against Anita Annamunthodo. After 11 months, the DPP had failed to appoint a State Counsel to prosecute this case, and the investigating officer, PC Hamilton, never had the courtesy to grace the court with his presence.

In balancing the scales of justice, the magistrate could not ignore the fact that Anita was in jail awaiting trial, because she could not raise the bail of $7,500.

The law is that she must be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and it is unacceptable for any citizen to be detained at the State’s pleasure without a trial.

What is more, the magistrate would have issued a stern warning to the prosecution to get its act together, or else on the last few occasions when the case was called. The prosecution would have had advance notice and warning that unless a lawyer was appointed and PC Hamilton was present on the next occasion, the case would be thrown out.

While billions of dollars are being spent on a Carnival centre, a new residence for our Prime Minister and a stadium in Tarouba, the criminal justice system is in tatters. We need twice as many magistrates and courts, a competent professional police service, more attorneys in the office of the DPP and, of course, a DNA lab.

To be fair, the DPP has been complaining about starvation for quite some time. When asked to respond to the long delay of some eight months in the filing of the murder indictment against Ryan Sagar for the June, 2003, murder of Debbie Ann Ramnath, Mr Henderson complained about understaffing, and said the delay was caused by “a severe lack of resources.”

The judiciary needs to do its part in kicking the State in the right place. Far too many judges and magistrates continuously and endlessly adjourn cases out of an understanding for the “position of the State.”

All are equal before the law, and it is not the function of the judiciary to sympathise with the State. By so doing, they might nurture an unconscious bias that is conducive to the kind of maladministration and inefficiency that have come to characterise the entire public service.

It is a simple question of prioritising public expenditure and understanding that the administration of justice must come before luxuries such as a Carnival centre, a diplomatic centre at the new residence of the PM, and the Tarouba stadium.

The Privy Council took the bull by the horns when Caribbean courts were sympathising with the massive backlog of cases that led to the ridiculous state of affairs that appeals by prisoners, who were sentenced to death, took as long as seven to ten years to surface.

In an excellent piece of social engineering, it said: “Their Lordships are very conscious that the Jamaican Government faces great difficulties with a disturbing murder rate and limited financial resources at its disposal to administer the legal system. Nevertheless, if capital punishment is to be retained, it must be carried out with all possible expedition. Capital appeals must be expedited and large legal aid allocated to an appellant at an early stage. The aim should be to hear capital appeals within 12 months of conviction.

This benchmark set by the Privy Council was greeted with a roar of approval by regional practitioners, who were fed up with the contemptuous treatment of the administration of justice when it came to allocation of scarce resources.

Locally, in the Maha Sabha radio licence case, Justice Carlton Best rejected the attempt by the State to rely on public service bureaucracy by commenting: “The lack of staff and inefficiency in the public service, the change of venue (of the ministry), political directorate and policy should not be allowed to stand as justification for the differential treatment of the Maha Sabha.

The sodomised, mutilated, murdered bodies of babies Emily Annamunthodo, Sean Luke, Radha Pixie Lakhan and Akiel Chambers are a constant reminder of why we need an effective and expeditious criminal justice system.

We failed them while they endured a lifetime of rape, torture and humiliation, and now, we are failing them again, as we deny the justice their memories deserve. How many more must die before we fix the leaks in the justice system that let so many off the hook without a fair trial?

By doing the right thing, Mr Wellington has focused the spotlight on the real issues that plague the criminal justice system. In an election year, when $600 million is going to rush through the system like a dose of salts, is our malfunctioning system of justice anywhere on the government's agenda?

By Anand Ramlogan
2007-04-22

___________________________________________

Site Administrator's note:
This site commends Dominic Kalipersad, Editor-in-Chief of the Trinidad Guardian, for his courage and leadership in promoting Freedom of Expression through his newspapers.

It is recommended that comments submitted to this site also be sent by email, fax, or post to the editor of the Trinidad Guardian Editor-in-chief, 22-24 St Vincent Street, Port-of-Spain. Fax: 625-7211. E-mail: letters@ttol.co.tt. This will give opportunity for the Guardian to publish select responses for those without internet access.

From Marcelle Hamilton to the CoP to the Prime Minister, there is a trail of non-perfomance, a stink of rot.

So many steps of hierarchy and over such a long period, and not even once was the question asked 'why?'

It is obvious that the checks and balances put into the Civil Service regulations (including the Police Service) are not working. Time for a revamp.

<<So many steps of hierarchy and over such a long period, and not even once was the question asked 'why?'>>

As usual Jumbie, you have the crux of the matter in sight. Here's my input to all the readers on this site:

1. Study the history of the PNM and their policies over 40 years.

2. Read the 'Economist.com' article from (i think) april/may 2005 talking about how third world politicians promise many things but fail to deliver when they are elected to government as this would erode the one thing they use to attain power -- the hope that something will change in the country and the dependence on promises. If governments actually fixed problems for the poor/the masses, then the masses lose the "dependency sydrome" and begin voting on real issues instead on who has the bigger manifesto. [SOUND BLOODY FAMILIAR???!!! Wake up Trinidad, even the Economist Magazine begs us to mature!]

3. Read "the book of the way and its virtue" by Tao Te Ching (600 BCE) and especially the passage (#3) where "the people and the wise man's policy" is discussed.

I love the line where he says to empty their minds and fill their bellies. Hmmm ... junior secs/UTT and soup kitchens? URP/CEPEP? Promotion by seniority instead of performance? Seems like the executive is a lot brighter than we give them credit for. We do, yet we dont ask or think. We are satisfied with substandard services and we dont demand better. Read the following passage and think about it. Read it twice. Grasp how stupid we all are and how easy we are to divide and conquer; grasp how easy it has been to plunder the oil and other resources that belong to all of us, and not just to the jacket and tie, knife and fork, university educated criminal that we call "politician."

This is why the country is so messed up. There is no reason why we cant afford water, healthcare, education, and a crime free society. It's just that we are easier to control when we lack them all. This is why we build stadiums, roads, and carnival centres, when the hospitals, the judiciary, the schools, and the police need so much money.

Not to value and employ men of superior ability is the way to
keep the people from rivalry among themselves; not to prize articles
which are difficult to procure is the way to keep them from becoming
thieves; not to show them what is likely to excite their desires is
the way to keep their minds from disorder.

Therefore the sage, in the exercise of his government, empties
their minds, fills their bellies, weakens their wills, and strengthens
their bones.

He constantly (tries to) keep them without knowledge and without
desire, and where there are those who have knowledge, to keep them
from presuming to act (on it). When there is this abstinence from
action, good order is universal.
- Tao Te Ching, 600BC

To Jumbie and collaborators

 

With respect to your statement regarding checks and balances, are you implying that all previous regimes were guilty of the same gee-me gee-me syndrome, which was established and institutionalized by the PNM.

 

I guess that the building of Ghettos and its resultant criminal delinquency was also to be blamed on all previous regimes. Perhaps you were absent when Morgan Jobe was in the parliament.

 

Were you absent when a particular regime enacted laws such as Freedom of Information, Integrity in Public Life, Equal Opportunity, Judicial Review Act etc., or when the political (Conglomerate Controlled) media went on a bigoted campaign to destroy what they referred to as Indian Hindu Government.

 

I would like to know if you were awake when the Political Trade Unionists and other so-called NGO’s were crying Crocodile tears about a creeping Dictatorship but they are conveniently silent when their tribe is in power. Even the bigoted calypsonians had a field day with their vile racist venom and they were supported by the bigoted masses in the media and elsewhere.

 

There was also a scornful display of Bigotry in the Judiciary where a so-called eminent Judge spoke of the then regime as a dictatorship, and he was supported by his co-conspirator, on the steps of the hall of justice.

 

Do you know that the particular regime (Hindu Indian) tried to address the sickening decadence in the Judiciary (Accountability & Transparency), in the various POLITICALLY controlled Ministries and even in the public service?

 

 Although a new regime was in power, the decadent PNM elements were controlling the governance of the country, aided and abetted by the sycophant and cronies holding very high offices in covertly political and financially influential organizations and groups.

RIK,

There is no collaboration between myself and any other members of this site. I assume when you mention collaboration you mean we come together to defend a single position.

I admire your zeal in defending your position, but I call things as I see them.

"I do not make the stereotypes, I only see them." (Russell Peters)

The fact that so many of us see the same things is not because of collaboration, simply that we see the same problems existing.

It is a bit unfortunate that you are not clear in your contributions, just hints and comments alluding to people and situations where all is not right. When I write, I give reasons for my arguments, reasons why I see things the way I do. If someone points out to me another view I have not seen, I consider it to the point where I am willing to discard or change mine based on the merits of their argument.

I have not yet seen any argument from you.

The checks and balances I referred to are already built into the Civil Service regulations (I was specifically referring to the Civil Service in my original contribution), and need only be implemented hopefully by concientious persons.


It is extremely convenient that you see the stereotypes that satisfy your prejudice but refuse to see the stereotypes highlighted by Anand  and others that don’t find favor in your myopic eyes.

 

You have not seen an argument from me but you denounce the facts outlined by the victims, of your (acceptable) institutionalised racism and corporate/ religious Bigotry.


 

So therefore, RIK V, you are saying I should look at all the other arguments presented by everyone else, and accept them as YOUR viewpoint simply because you can't be bothered to make your own?

I disagree. If you want me to see your point of view, then state it plainly. I am all ears... in this case, all eyes.

Rik, what on earth are you going on about? It sounds so vague man - like just a blast of general hot air. Get to the point.

Rik, we can argue about which politicans are better and which are worse. I think, by your statements, I might actually agree with you on who did more than others.

But you miss the forest but for the tree. On a scale of one to ten, three is still higher than two, right? But both are miserably low numbers.

Relatively speaking, I think the Panday administration and the Robinson Administration did more for "sustainable development" of the country and for individuals than anyone else.

Absolutely speaking, all of our politicans have been miserable failures from the simple perspective that we are an oil rich country ("high-income developing country" as noted by PAHO and WHO) yet we scream for water, security, quality healthcare, an educated workforce, a working judiciary, and a local foodbasket. There is no excuse for it! NONE! We need to raise our expectations of all politicans, not just the really bad ones, or the ones we dont agree with.

Am I wrong RIK-V? Tell me :)

ps. I try to quote sources and facts. While you may know alot, you tend to be vague and general; i agree with jumbie. I think everyone would appreciate your arguements better if you speak frankly and with conviction. I do want to hear them.

I guess that you are a scientist ‘G’ because you are only concerned with the sources and facts.

 

Is the news media a source of factual data? Then it stands to reason, that the poles that are printed in the media are a source of factual data for you superior intellectuals.

 

I am sorry that I did not construct my comments in the appropriate legislative format to satisfy the intellectual appetite of you textbook professors.

 

I am not of your supreme intellectual ilk and therefore as a simpleton I expected that such wise sages as yourselves, could read between the lines.

There, there. Don't go berating yourself and putting yourself down. We ARE here to help you know. If only you'd actually come out and say what it is that is on your mind.

Without pointing out flaws in our arguments, and also without putting forward any arguments of your own, there you go castigating yourself and bowing to 'our' intellectual superiority. Don't give up just yet, my friend. Try, try and try again. You must get some small ideas across at least.

Tell me this Jumbie.

 

You claim to like debates. I was looking for the objectivity in your arguments but it seems to adopt a strange pseudo-racist slant that I find objectionable. 

 

I am no textbook intellectual with the level of professionalism comparable to such literary scholars as Professor Selwyn Ryan and the late great Lloyd Best, so I am unable to intellectualize my thoughts with such monotonous fortitude.

 I will try to explain what I meant when I attempted to provoke a decisive response; Then it stands to reason, that the poles that are printed in the media are a source of factual data for you superior intellectuals”. 

I referred to the so-called scientific opinion Polls as a (Flag) Pole because I am of the view that some of these Polls are engineered to satisfy particular egocentric agendas.

 

For instance, there is the media market Polls and the opinion polls with respect to politics. It is at times abundantly apparent that the methodology employed, is calculated to generate tainted results as a promotion gimmick for their product/brand of choice, thereby the opinion Poll is corruptly manipulated into a Flag Pole for the product of choice.

 

This method of propaganda and sensationalism is also deceitfully employed by shrewd intellectuals (Gurbles [spell check?]) to mask the vicious inhumane policies and practices of their (selective bigotry) political administration.

  

Maybe it's just me but I'm struggling to see how this branch of the discussion namely 'Simpleton' is connected in any way to the main issues arising from Anand's commentary 'How many more must die?'.

I'd like to suggest Jumbie and RIK let us know where they're heading with this. As I see it the 'Simpleton' branch came off 'Checks & Balances from whom?'. If 'Simpleton' cannot be connected to the issues in the commentary, perhaps the discussion could continue via your inboxes.

Most recent poll

Compared to your expectation of living say in England, how safe do you feel living in T&T (in general)?
I feel very safe
6%
I feel somewhat safe
2%
I'm undecided
6%
I don't really feel safe
36%
I feel very unsafe
50%
Total votes: 50