Tweet
Is the law an ass?
Published: Wednesday | August 3, 2011 Comments 0
Dennie Quill, Contributor
IF YOU know your literature, you will easily recognise the expression "the law is an ass - an idiot" as being uttered by Mr Bumble, one of the quirky characters in the Charles Dickens' classic Oliver Twist. This is after Bumble tried to place the theft of jewellery on his wife and was told that since his wife is under his direction, he is to be blamed for the crime.
Having read Oliver Twist many moons ago, I had more or less forgotten about Mr Bumble. Lately, however, Mr Bumble's insights have been pricking at my thoughts as I have witnessed how certain laws are applied by police personnel.
Here are examples of what I mean.
In the first case, a motorist leaves home on a lazy Sunday to buy the newspapers a short distance away. He has the exact change for his intended purchase but has left behind his wallet with his identification. He is driving his girlfriend's car. He is stopped by the police and cannot provide his licences. He is threatened with arrest, the car is about to be seized and an ugly scene develops. Eventually, he is accompanied to his home where his girlfriend is present and assures the police that the car belongs to her and that it had not been stolen and that the man driving it had her permission to do so.
Another case
Then there is another case in which a motorist is being driven to the airport by her son, who is a duly licensed driver. They are stopped by the police and the car papers are not in the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle and mother of the driver, explains that she changed her handbag that morning and had inadvertently left the car papers behind since she would not need them for her trip overseas. This sounds like a reasonable explanation. However, the policeman is not buying it. He threatens to seize the car until proof of ownership can be established. He accompanies them to the airport and then to the nearby police station.
And, finally, a mother of a five-year-old is taking her daughter to school one morning. It is the end of the month and the police are strategically placed all over the city carrying out their spot checks. She is stopped and her insurance has expired. She explained that she had been overseas and had just returned to the island overnight and would have it rectified that day. The policeman was not convinced. He was on his phone in a flash and before she could say her name, the car was seized she was left on the sidewalk to explain to her child what had just occurred.
In all the above cases, I am pointing to the manner in which the law is applied by the police. It is arbitrary and situational.
There was a time when a person in violation of traffic laws as it related to operating a motor vehicle would be given time in which to report to the police station with the appropriate documents. Failing to comply with this order would trigger the extreme actions described above.
So, when did the law change?
In defence of this rigid application of the law, some may say this has been the response to the rampant theft of motor vehicles. One could willingly accept that explanation if there were not scores of motor vehicles being stolen daily from church parking lots and commercial centres. In one extreme case, the motorist's gate was removed and the car driven away.
How are car thieves able to escape police scrutiny and continue their wicked trade of stealing motor vehicles? How are the new owners able to operate these vehicles on the road? Where is police vigilance then?
Send feedback to editorial@gleanerjm.com.
Published: Wednesday | August 3, 2011 Comments 0
Dennie Quill, Contributor
IF YOU know your literature, you will easily recognise the expression "the law is an ass - an idiot" as being uttered by Mr Bumble, one of the quirky characters in the Charles Dickens' classic Oliver Twist. This is after Bumble tried to place the theft of jewellery on his wife and was told that since his wife is under his direction, he is to be blamed for the crime.
Having read Oliver Twist many moons ago, I had more or less forgotten about Mr Bumble. Lately, however, Mr Bumble's insights have been pricking at my thoughts as I have witnessed how certain laws are applied by police personnel.
Here are examples of what I mean.
In the first case, a motorist leaves home on a lazy Sunday to buy the newspapers a short distance away. He has the exact change for his intended purchase but has left behind his wallet with his identification. He is driving his girlfriend's car. He is stopped by the police and cannot provide his licences. He is threatened with arrest, the car is about to be seized and an ugly scene develops. Eventually, he is accompanied to his home where his girlfriend is present and assures the police that the car belongs to her and that it had not been stolen and that the man driving it had her permission to do so.
Another case
Then there is another case in which a motorist is being driven to the airport by her son, who is a duly licensed driver. They are stopped by the police and the car papers are not in the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle and mother of the driver, explains that she changed her handbag that morning and had inadvertently left the car papers behind since she would not need them for her trip overseas. This sounds like a reasonable explanation. However, the policeman is not buying it. He threatens to seize the car until proof of ownership can be established. He accompanies them to the airport and then to the nearby police station.
And, finally, a mother of a five-year-old is taking her daughter to school one morning. It is the end of the month and the police are strategically placed all over the city carrying out their spot checks. She is stopped and her insurance has expired. She explained that she had been overseas and had just returned to the island overnight and would have it rectified that day. The policeman was not convinced. He was on his phone in a flash and before she could say her name, the car was seized she was left on the sidewalk to explain to her child what had just occurred.
In all the above cases, I am pointing to the manner in which the law is applied by the police. It is arbitrary and situational.
There was a time when a person in violation of traffic laws as it related to operating a motor vehicle would be given time in which to report to the police station with the appropriate documents. Failing to comply with this order would trigger the extreme actions described above.
So, when did the law change?
In defence of this rigid application of the law, some may say this has been the response to the rampant theft of motor vehicles. One could willingly accept that explanation if there were not scores of motor vehicles being stolen daily from church parking lots and commercial centres. In one extreme case, the motorist's gate was removed and the car driven away.
How are car thieves able to escape police scrutiny and continue their wicked trade of stealing motor vehicles? How are the new owners able to operate these vehicles on the road? Where is police vigilance then?
Send feedback to editorial@gleanerjm.com.
Comment