?I refer to your February 3 edition carrying the banner headline, "CJ: Crime not so bad," and also the first paragraph of the related story written by Raphael John-Lall on page 3 of the said publication, which read: "The crime problem in Trinidad and Tobago is not as bad as many people make it out to be, says Chief Justice Ivor Archie."
Further to the telephone discussions we have had on this issue, I wish to reinforce the point I made that in his address to the luncheon of the T&T Chamber of Industry and Commerce on February 2, the Chief Justice never made the statement attributed to him in the Guardian's headline and in your reporter's more detailed account. What the Chief Justice said, as borne out in transcripts of his address, was the danger everyone is made to feel from media reports about crime is not as bad sometimes as we think it is, not that crime is not so bad, as portrayed in the Guardian's headline and also in Lall's report. The Chief Justice went on to suggest that because of the smallness of our society and people's familiarity with others affected by crime, there is a resulting fear that is exploited by some to intimidate and to pervert the course of justice.Surely, the judiciary of the Republic of T&T will be one of the arms of the State that would be most aware of the extent of crime in all of its manifestations in the country. It is instructive that from their published accounts, no other media house, print nor electronic, which covered the Chief Justice's address, came away with the skewed impression conveyed in the Guardian's coverage. These other media houses all had similar headlines relating to the threat facing judicial officers, jurors and witnesses by some in society who wished to capitalise on that fear. Even the Guardian on its front page strap, and the headline to the detailed account, was similar to the other media.
For further clarification, the following is a transcript of the portion of the address by the Chief Justice most relevant to the Guardian's headline and Lall's report: "Finally, and I am going to finish shortly, I would like to say something about security. This is uppermost in the minds of most citizens in this country, and there is a sense–especially when we look at the print and electronic media–a sense that we are in danger. Personally, I don't think it is as bad sometimes as we think it is, but because we are a small country, there is no anonymity to crime. If we have not been victims of crime, somebody we know, some member of our family, has been a victim of crime, and because of that, there are those in our society who would seek to subvert the administration of justice by fear and intimidation, either of witnesses, jurors or judicial officers. Of course it is axiomatic that those who take part in the criminal justice process must do so without fear or favour, and this requires the preservation of an environment where one can feel secure." We are quite disappointed naturally by the Guardian's inaccurate treatment of the address by the Chief Justice, and also with sections of the electronic media who chose the unfortunate and inaccurate Guardian headline and account over all others as the basis for further public discussion of the issue, thereby misrepresenting the Chief Justice further to the national community. We propose no prolongation of this matter either with the Guardian newspaper or other sections of the media, save to suggest that adherence to the canons of this noble profession of journalism, which include the quest for accuracy, fairness, balance and objectivity, will minimise occurrences of this kind.
?Jones P Madeira
Court Protocol and
Information Manager
Editor's note:
There was no consensus
The first point to be made is that "it" is a pronoun–a word that is meant to replace or stand in for a noun.The noun that a pronoun replaces is referred to as its antecedent. Pronouns must agree with the nouns they replace in number (either singular or plural), in case (whether referring to the subject, object or possessive) and in gender. For communication to be clear, a pronoun must refer to a specific antecedent and should be placed close to its antecedent for clarity. If not, ambiguity or confusion may result.
When a pronoun could possibly refer to more than one antecedent, the grammar books advise that the pronoun should be replaced or the sentence rewritten to ensure clarity.
This is what the Chief Justice said:
"...I would like to say something about security. This is uppermost in the minds of most citizens in this country, and there is a sense –especially when we look at the print and electronic media–a sense that we are in danger. Personally, I don't think it is as bad sometimes as we think it is, but because we are a small country, there is no anonymity to crime..."
In parsing the comments of the Chief Justice, one must ask what noun, noun clause or noun phrase was the "it" in the third sentence meant to replace. The noun in the second sentence closest to the "it" is "danger" and the noun clause closest is "a sense that we are in danger."
The "it" in the third sentence, therefore, could refer either to "danger" or "a sense that we are in danger."
If the "it" in the third sentence refers to "danger" or "a sense that we are in danger," are we to understand the sentence as follows?
a) Personally, I don't think dan-ger is as bad sometimes as we think it is, but because we are a small country, there is no anonymity to crime.
Or
b) Personally, I don't think a sense that we are in danger is as bad as we think it is, but because we are a small country, there is no anonymity to crime.
Following receipt of the letter from the judiciary, carried in full above, the Chief Justice's comments were sent to four language experts, both here and abroad, who were asked what they thought the first "it" in the third sentence of the paragraph of the excerpt from the Chief Justice's speech referred.
There was no consensus.
One interpretation was that the Chief Justice was saying: "The danger we sense is not as bad as we feel it is" and that the danger refers to the insecurity citizens feel because of the level of crime. �Another expert interpreted the Chief Justice as saying: "Personally, I don't think this perceived danger is as immediate or life-threatening as we sometimes think it (meaning the danger) is, but because we are a small country, there is no anonymity to crime." Two of the four felt that the first "it" referred to crime with one describing the sentence as "muddled." The controversial sentence, at the very least, was ambiguous and opened the door to being misconstrued. The test of the ambiguity of the sentence is that if the Chief Justice had to write the words that he spoke, he certainly would replace the first "it" with the antecedent noun he had in his mind. That being said, the Guardian is deeply and sincerely apologetic to the Chief Justice if we misinterpreted his words.
