Dear Editor,
There is a deficiency in the justice system which is revealed firstly, when law enforcement in haste arrests the wrong persons and secondly, when those persons are denied a fair trial.
Now, my basic intelligence tells me that prior to a person being arrested for a criminal infraction, the situation must be carefully assessed and investigated before an arrest is effected, so as to determine the likelihood of guilt or innocence. In addition, in Guyana, the legal system makes a fair trial doubtful.
My interest was actually drawn to this situation by the wrongful arrest of a male acquaintance who found himself involved in an incident whereby the breaking off of a friendship with a female he discovered to be of a violent disposition finally resulted in violence upon his person.
As it happened, the female would not accept the decision he made and embarked on stalking him. Whenever she saw him in the company of another female, she intervened with obscenities and physical threats, no matter where they were.
This man is a public figure, and as a result the encounters were abrasive and humiliating as well as damaging to his character and reputation.
He told me it was senseless to figure out why she and some individuals cannot accept being rejected. And in time her behaviour escalated to the level that she carried out her threats and physically attacked him, tossing stones at him, one of which struck him on the head causing enough of an injury to draw blood. She then advanced upon him with a wooden stave, forcing him to grab her arms in a clinch, and they both fell to the brick road where upon contact a nasty wound to her head resulted. In terms of accuracy this was mutual combat which she herself had instigated. She had left her home, taken two buses to cross the Demerara River bridge, and walked in two miles to his home to accost him. Yet, she was designated the virtual complainant. And the man was arrested when the police arrived.
Of course, they never enquired from him as to what had occurred; they listened solely to what the woman had to say. This was one-sided judgment, and their decision was based solely on what the woman had chosen to tell them. Was this fair treatment to the man? No!
The police in Guyana need to be better trained, and whenever they have to take action in a dispute it should never be supported by sentiment or worse yet, bias. There are women who are violent towards men who prefer to keep it quiet – why? The very police demean them – subject them to general mockery and ridicule. This improper procedure should be carefully examined and corrected.
And this correction should begin at the police academy where prospective ranks should be introduced to the idea of due process when they enrol, so that future action taken in a male-female dispute would reflect a full assessment of all the factors. Frankly, I am immensely perturbed and dismayed by a procedure which favours the woman, and the man is arrested no matter how much he tries to account for himself.
This is an appalling predicament for men to face.
In addition, this male acquaintance of whom I speak is a hypoglycaemic (low blood sugar diabetic), and hours after his arrest he pleaded with the ranks at a West Bank police station (name given) for medical attention, but they laughed at him.
A female rank in charge mocked him: “You hit a woman and now ask a woman for help. No!” And as the hours elapsed he experienced a sugar deficiency and passed out.
Even then they would not aid him. This man could have fallen into a comatose state had it not been for a visitor to the station who was familiar with his condition and administered a sugary drink which was dripped into his mouth.
He was then kept at the station for twelve additional hours before being taken to the Best Hospital. The police should be aware that their role is to assist the populace; when they arrest someone, they are responsible for their safety while they are in their custody.
The police do not seem to know this, and to have them be aware of this, they need to be better trained.
The man’s trial was even more debilitating when he was told by the Magistrate that the supportive evidence he was waiting to show exceeded the six months statute of limitations as is the norm in Guyana.
This man’s appearance in court was deferred eleven times in an eight-month period, and he was placed in the box after the expiration of the six-month period. What is this, really? Another archaic thing was, he was told to answer questions asked him by the prosecutor with only yes or no.
How can anyone defend themselves in this manner? All citizens should be allowed similar rights; evidence is evidence and should be allowed for the duration of a trial, otherwise treatment becomes discriminatory.
Yours faithfully,
Jorge Bowenforbes
