Dear Editor,
The shooting death of Gavin Paul, and the relative ‘no big deal’ response by law enforcement is an indication of how lawlessness has become a matter of who is the victim, and most often who is the shooter. The fact that he bled to death in a barbarous example of spectator apathy is a defining moment in our history. We can look back at the circumstances of this event as being representative of the many over the past eight or nine years, that mark our social degeneration from a society that cherished and clung to the essence of our humanness, to one politically influenced into accepting that the ends that are okay with the current establishmentarian power and perspective, justify whatever means are taken to accomplish them. And that is a sad state of affairs for any nation to find itself in.
It is not okay to rob people, to steal from people, to snatch gold chains from people, to unlawfully and without legal justification, torture, maim and kill people. Having to make this disclaimer every time one proceeds to take issue with matters relating to crime in Guyana, is akin to standing before a 2nd or 3rd grade class and slowly explaining that no, we do not mean to infer that proteins are bad when we advocate moderation of their fat intake. Because that is the paradigm that is in flow in Guyana today.
Comments that Guyanese are not bothered by claims of torture, or that some are overly obsessed with the rights of criminals and felons, are indicative of the burgeoning intolerance for, and impatience with, those checks and balances that represent the very foundations of our jurisprudence: that the courts are the sole authority before which the guilt or innocence of a party is determined; that who is a felon or criminal is a consequence of that determination, not the sophomoric opinion of the Minister of Home Affairs, the President of the nation, or the named and anonymous columnists and letter writers waxing injudiciously and partisanly on all and sundry; that everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence until such determination is made by that competent authority; that everyone is entitled to due process in accordance with the rules, principles and values as set down in our laws and constitution; that the rule of law is not only supposed to be a check on what ordinary citizens are allowed to do and say, but is also a restraint on those, whether in a civilian or law enforcement capacity, involved with the administration of justice in Guyana.
Gavin Paul was involved in an inexcusable disobedience of law when he snatched a gold chain from around the neck of its owner. That act would have subjected him to a charge of larceny from the person, a crime that does not merit capital punishment. The Laws of Guyana, including those under which firearm licences are granted, unambiguously set down the conditions under which such firearms can be used. And nothing in the circumstances reported in this matter even remotely approaches the conditions under which a licensed firearm owner is justified in using lethal force. We can place ourselves in the situation of the shooter, and predict that such an outcome was inevitable given the current social and ideological mores attendant on some expressions of criminality in Guyana. Still, the architects of our laws and their prohibitions anticipated these eventualities, and thus the checks and balances governing the use of lethal force.
The checks and balances in the rule of law and due process that establishes restraint on law enforcement and the judiciary were placed there to protect the worst among us. That is an abstract principle that seems to be very elusive for the very persons in positions in Guyana, and for whom it should be of utmost importance. For it is only when the worst among us can look forward to the protection of those principles and restraints in their interaction with the law, that the best among us can be comfortable and secure in our assumptions that it will work for us also.
Those of us who seek to constantly hold the feet of officialdom to the fire in pursuit of preventing further deterioration of established legal standards in our nation, should not allow shallow and convenient criticisms of our positions to deter us from this moral, ethical and principled activism. For there is something awfully disquieting in the notion that it is justified to argue for the rule of law, due process and the presumption of innocence on behalf of a twice convicted felon in US custody, while expressing impatience and intolerance when that argument is replicated across the board on behalf of all in and of Guyana. And such expressions of moral and ethical rela-tivism from some in our society, are further evidence of our continued divorcement from principles and standards that we formerly considered important, even sacred.
Yours faithfully,
Robin Williams
