Tweet
Forgiveness, pardon and logic
MICHAEL BURKE
Thursday, January 24, 2008
A policeman has confessed to falsifying information in a murder case. We read elsewhere in the press that subsequent to that the mother of the accused has forgiven him. There are many people in our society who believe that forgiveness and pardon are the same thing. Forgiveness means that revenge will not be sought. Pardon means cancelling punishment. The mother of the accused has forgiven the policeman. The question of pardon is another matter, which only the court can decide, if the law allows the judge to have an option.
Every Roman Catholic who goes to confession knows that penance for sin is different from pardon. Punishment should never be a matter of revenge. Indeed, if the policeman who has apologised is genuine about his apology, he should know that a penalty is deserved and should willingly comply with the penalty, if sentenced.
At the same time, there should be some serious changes in the way the police are graded. Apparently, if they do not get their criminals convicted it is seen as a demerit. And apparently, promotions are based on convictions. I have heard of a case of a male virgin being convicted for rape and sentenced to serve six years. Unfortunately, I heard about it after the sentence was served. Apparently, the accused was medically examined but the doctor did not attend court that day. Whether or not there was any collusion between the doctor and the arresting police officer, I do not know. But it could well be.
And by the way, the matter of the falsification of evidence gives the anti-death penalty people one more point. One of the main arguments used by the anti-death penalty people is the possibility of wrong conviction and the sentence, once executed, cannot be reversed.
Indeed, the greatest deterrent to any crime is the fear of being caught. In the Middle Ages in England history tells us that pickpockets were hanged for the crimes in the public places like markets.And as those who believed that they would never be robbed, the crowds looked on at the hanging, pockets were picked. I am not a supporter of the death penalty for the simple reason that wrong convictions are possible. I find that most people who want the death penalty to remain do not really want justice. What they want is revenge, which is, I admit, a natural emotion.
And emotions do get in the way of objectivity. Most of the time, it also affects the way we think and argue. I have a commentary on radio which has been going for nearly 18 years. But I have promised myself that if I ever host a call-in programme, I will make an attempt to teach callers to think logically and argue objectively. In my experience, too many letter writers react impulsively even while accusing the people they are criticising of doing so.
Last week I wrote about Portmore and a letter writer who wrote from abroad. I wrote that it annoys me when people do not live here and want to pontificate about matters that they do not have to live with. I called no names but you know the Jamaican story of when you throw stone in a hog pen the one who squeals is the one who got hit. The letter writer has been good enough to inform me that he actually travels back and forth. I had no way of knowing that from the letter.
I have news for him, though. Many of us, once we see a foreign email address, start to wonder how long the person has not lived here. It might be a good idea for most Jamaicans in the diaspora when writing to say how often they visit Jamaica. And by the way, the letter writer needs to know that being a university professor neither impresses nor intimidates me. Just about everyone who reads and listens to me knows that.
Before the last general election, I wrote and said that I believed the Jamaica Labour Party would win the next election, which they did. Some assumed that I had become a supporter of the JLP. So tell me something; if a weather forecaster says that a hurricane is coming, does that mean that the forecaster wants the hurricane to come? I have praised and criticised both political parties where I see fit. I keep on telling you, I am not for "he, she or the old lady". Ideologically, I am a socialist and there is no real socialist party in Jamaica, so where does that put me?
In 1969, at the time of the local government elections, the Gleaner had a contest as to who could predict the result in every division. The JLP won a majority of local government seats in that election, and the person who came first got only one wrong. A seat he predicted would go to the JLP, but it went to an Independent who joined the JLP immediately.
At the time I was 15 years old and thought the winner was a labourite. But the winner, Ken Chin-Onn, was actually the research officer of the People's National Party who would go on to become the PNP general secretary. He served in that capacity between 1972 and 1974.
MICHAEL BURKE
Thursday, January 24, 2008
A policeman has confessed to falsifying information in a murder case. We read elsewhere in the press that subsequent to that the mother of the accused has forgiven him. There are many people in our society who believe that forgiveness and pardon are the same thing. Forgiveness means that revenge will not be sought. Pardon means cancelling punishment. The mother of the accused has forgiven the policeman. The question of pardon is another matter, which only the court can decide, if the law allows the judge to have an option.
Every Roman Catholic who goes to confession knows that penance for sin is different from pardon. Punishment should never be a matter of revenge. Indeed, if the policeman who has apologised is genuine about his apology, he should know that a penalty is deserved and should willingly comply with the penalty, if sentenced.
At the same time, there should be some serious changes in the way the police are graded. Apparently, if they do not get their criminals convicted it is seen as a demerit. And apparently, promotions are based on convictions. I have heard of a case of a male virgin being convicted for rape and sentenced to serve six years. Unfortunately, I heard about it after the sentence was served. Apparently, the accused was medically examined but the doctor did not attend court that day. Whether or not there was any collusion between the doctor and the arresting police officer, I do not know. But it could well be.
And by the way, the matter of the falsification of evidence gives the anti-death penalty people one more point. One of the main arguments used by the anti-death penalty people is the possibility of wrong conviction and the sentence, once executed, cannot be reversed.
Indeed, the greatest deterrent to any crime is the fear of being caught. In the Middle Ages in England history tells us that pickpockets were hanged for the crimes in the public places like markets.And as those who believed that they would never be robbed, the crowds looked on at the hanging, pockets were picked. I am not a supporter of the death penalty for the simple reason that wrong convictions are possible. I find that most people who want the death penalty to remain do not really want justice. What they want is revenge, which is, I admit, a natural emotion.
And emotions do get in the way of objectivity. Most of the time, it also affects the way we think and argue. I have a commentary on radio which has been going for nearly 18 years. But I have promised myself that if I ever host a call-in programme, I will make an attempt to teach callers to think logically and argue objectively. In my experience, too many letter writers react impulsively even while accusing the people they are criticising of doing so.
Last week I wrote about Portmore and a letter writer who wrote from abroad. I wrote that it annoys me when people do not live here and want to pontificate about matters that they do not have to live with. I called no names but you know the Jamaican story of when you throw stone in a hog pen the one who squeals is the one who got hit. The letter writer has been good enough to inform me that he actually travels back and forth. I had no way of knowing that from the letter.
I have news for him, though. Many of us, once we see a foreign email address, start to wonder how long the person has not lived here. It might be a good idea for most Jamaicans in the diaspora when writing to say how often they visit Jamaica. And by the way, the letter writer needs to know that being a university professor neither impresses nor intimidates me. Just about everyone who reads and listens to me knows that.
Before the last general election, I wrote and said that I believed the Jamaica Labour Party would win the next election, which they did. Some assumed that I had become a supporter of the JLP. So tell me something; if a weather forecaster says that a hurricane is coming, does that mean that the forecaster wants the hurricane to come? I have praised and criticised both political parties where I see fit. I keep on telling you, I am not for "he, she or the old lady". Ideologically, I am a socialist and there is no real socialist party in Jamaica, so where does that put me?
In 1969, at the time of the local government elections, the Gleaner had a contest as to who could predict the result in every division. The JLP won a majority of local government seats in that election, and the person who came first got only one wrong. A seat he predicted would go to the JLP, but it went to an Independent who joined the JLP immediately.
At the time I was 15 years old and thought the winner was a labourite. But the winner, Ken Chin-Onn, was actually the research officer of the People's National Party who would go on to become the PNP general secretary. He served in that capacity between 1972 and 1974.