The debate on "bail and the administration of justice" has been reignited in the public domain, no doubt due to perceived current exigencies. We're not singular in that respect, as I just glimpsed at a short reference to the president of the Barbados Bar Association expressing his exasperation at the Barbados "administration of justice" being "dysfunctional." Of course, the less said of the recent legal imbroglio in Jamaica, the better.
However, nearer home, our own debate must necessarily be predicated on the establishing of that blurred line between the liberty of the individual and the safety of the society.It's hardly a secret that the hard-core, dangerously criminal element has been known to use the ease of acquiring bail, in spite of having many serious criminal charges pending, to blaze an indiscriminate trail of terror and sometimes even rape, murder and armed robbery.
Criminality takes different forms. To start with, there are so-called "blue-collar and white-collar" crimes. There is the criminality associated with aberrant individual behaviour and organised crime that assumes the form of a business if not an industry. And let's admit that there also exists the psychopathic monsters–"beasts in human form," as a judge once characterised them, for whom snuffing out a human life just for the sheer heck of it represents little more than "another notch in their nervous gun."
How else do you explain the shooting of helpless children or a fleeing, panic-stricken girl being shot in the back?At times, the media appear to take up the cudgels on behalf of the victims of heinous crimes, notwithstanding the constitutional implications and legal complexities involved, as there cannot be one law for hoodlums and another for law-abiding citizens.The suggestion that there should be some tightening in respect of the bail procedures for people who have several serious criminal charges pending, meets with a deafening silence from some members of the legal fraternity–not only in T&T, I might add.
We are favoured with the odd spasmodic, superficial, pious, platitudinising cliches that, to my mind, have little bearing on or basis in reality.We are gratuitously made "aware" of "the erosion of criminal law...departure from established practice and settled procedure of criminal law...the defence counsel's overriding concern with the client's interest," to the utter disregard of the community's larger interest.
Far be it from me to suggest an underlying (even subliminal) vested financial interest lurking in the shadows of legal minds.Besides this, lawyers–by the very nature of their training and discipline–are easily predisposed to being conveniently committed to a specific side of a question, depending on the briefs or guineas.I sometimes find it difficult to understand why the same seal (emanating from legal and other quarters) which seeks to arouse the social conscience in respect of our supposed responsibilities for the rehabilitation of those guilty of the most heinous crimes (showing no remorse at that) is seldom harnessed in the cause of aggrieved and innocent victims of criminal activity.
Can it possibly be a question of misplaced zeal, synthetic sensitivity or "holier-than-thou" posturing? Admittedly, the denial of freedom may seem a remote or abstract issue unless and/or until it touches one personally. The average person is little preoccupied with abstract legal principles but seems primarily concerned with the effect of the law in respect of his/her personal safety or enjoyment of property.
I'm advised that the right to bail and the right to appeal are important pinions of our democracy. I'm further advised that there are good and cogent reasons why a person should be presumed innocent unless proven otherwise, beyond any reasonable doubt and in a properly constituted court.To lightly deny a person his/her liberty for a protracted period effectively presumes "guilt" and inflicts a form of punishment on a person who may well be the innocent victim of a genuine error, a web of fortuitous circumstances, or downright trumped-up charges. This is especially unfortunate if, like the mill of God, "the administration of justice" grinds slowly.
A victim may languish indefinitely in the inclement environment of incarceration.The rationale for denying bail for serious charges is that of guaranteeing the accused presence and the prevention of the abortion or frustration of the trial by the interference with witnesses through overwhelming inducement or intimidation or worse.
The ability of the accused to pose a grave/unacceptable danger to public safety perhaps rates a low priority, as this may not always be easy to establish.
But after all is said and done, as far as well-known hoodlums and desperadoes are concerned, a genuine problem exists, which is neither theoretical nor hypothetical, carries serious implications and cannot be left exclusively to the domain of legal minds which need not be in sync with social realities, or seemingly "brain-dead" politicians who have a penchant for playing "political football" with any serious issue that escapes the usual level of comprehension–fraudulent posturing notwithstanding.
In the event, the long suffering citizen remains unimpressed by the political games and simply groans for relief from the activities of ruthless and lawless elements, not to mention those of clueless politicians.
THOUGHTS
The suggestion that there should be some tightening in respect of the bail procedures for people who have several serious criminal charges pending, meets with a deafening silence from some members of the legal fraternity–not only in T&T, I might add.
Far be it from me to suggest an underlying (even subliminal) vested financial interest lurking in the shadows of legal minds.