Logic, Laws and Beneficiaries – Jamaica Observer

We often regard laws as the safeguards of our society. And that they are: The springboard to challenge our democracy and our freedom.

However, sometimes when you examine these laws under the microscope, you wonder who really benefits from them.

Let’s look at our bail law. The right to bail is guaranteed by our law. This is a good thing.

Presenting a case in court shouldn’t be an immediate jail sentence, but who really benefits from this law?

I think we can agree that well over 99%. 100 of people charged with criminal offenses are criminals. Each of them is entitled to bail, unless they have existing cases or pose a threat to the case in some way.

So while this is a law for our protection, it is truly a tool in every criminal’s toolbox.

The implications, when analyzed in practice, are significant in relation to victims’ rights.

Think about being abducted, brutalized, raped, and dehumanized by people you never hurt. They are arrested and 14 days later they are released on bail for five to seven years before being tried.

I understand the principle of what we hope to achieve, but what system could be so myopic as it is a reality that cannot be fixed.

Okay, you have the right to be released on bail. I understand. But if we can’t have a trial within a specific timeframe, there are consequences for both the victim and the perpetrator.

Where to find the balance?

My feeling is that no innocent man or woman should spend a long period of time in pretrial detention. So maybe we’ve gotten to the point where a bail application should be subject to a background check – a real one.

So if you’ve already been charged with criminal charges, no bail.

If you are listed by the National Intelligence Bureau as a gang member, no bail. And that would be my starting point.

Bail law is just one example of logic versus law; the right not to be involved in a crime.

Essentially, it is the right to be silent. Yes, it is the one that the police and soldiers lost when our Parliament created the Independent Commission of Inquiry (Indecom) Act.

Well, criminals still have it. Therefore, if a criminal confesses to a crime, a police officer must warn him that he is getting himself into trouble, using simple terms. Sounds stupid, doesn’t it?

Well, that helps the criminals a bit. They can’t even give a warning without their lawyer. It’s big.

Think about that. All those television programs showing US law enforcement interrogating suspects who confess cannot take place here. You cannot waive your right to a lawyer.

This is exactly the backbone of American justice and its clearance rate.

So who does this law help? Perhaps this innocent innocent in a thousand?

Okay, but it frees 10,000 guilty people to kill 30,000 innocent men.

Do you see what I mean by logic?

Let’s talk about gun control. The United States is therefore divided on the issue of assault rifles. Why? Because of the mass shootings.

Well, how many registered gun owners actually kill innocent people? Math can’t calculate that low. Yet people want to take away the right to own them. So let’s get to the logic.

There are 300,000,000 guns in the United States. Would a ban on assault rifles really help mass shooting? How could he?

Even locally, the Firearm Licensing Authority (FLA) pressures gun owners like “cow’s feet”.

Now I accept any review before you grant me a license. However, when you want to stress me out after giving me the license, I have to ask the question: how many registered gun owners commit crimes?

Law and logic are in conflict. The end result is that 3,000,000 of us are beaten by 10,000 clowns.

Okay, so you’re giving a statement to the police about a murder. The law states that since the man is accused of killing someone, he must receive a copy of this statement. Why not just paint a target on my back.

This rule has not always existed. It happened in the 1980s after the Linton Berry murder trial.

So I get the whole fair play part, but who does it help? Only criminals.

So if we had a rule that they weren’t told until the day of the trial, many criminals wouldn’t have the opportunity to properly prepare their defense by threatening to murder witnesses and their families. It would be a tragedy, I suppose. Hmmm, hear the sarcasm?

I understand why all these rules exist. I realize they are there to protect the one innocent man.

However, it is mainly about helping criminals almost totally.

I guess that’s why control societies have fewer crimes, but a lot more disgruntled criminals.

I guess it’s a good time to say thank goodness we’re free. Free to be murdered, robbed and kidnapped.

Jason McKay

Feedback: [email protected]

Comments are closed.