09 September 1999, 800 words
If I ever kill anyone, I'll probably be found guilty and be put in jail.
Now, in Trinidad and Tobago these days, that is not as obvious a statement as it sounds. If I were rich or fair-complexioned or knew the right people, I would probably not be found guilty at all or, even if I was, the charge would be reduced to manslaughter and I'd get a bond. But I am not rich, so I couldn't afford a high-priced lawyer; I am quite brown, so my middle-class status wouldn't be immediately obvious; and I don't move in established social circles. (I adhere to Bertrand Russell's view that "It is impossible to be respectable without also being wicked.")
There has been much comment on several recent high-profile cases where the three factors I have listed appeared to be the major ones in determining the innocence of the persons charged (although, strictly speaking, all that was really determined was the incompetence of the prosecution). But one recent case which attracted no comment at all was that of Clarita Rivas, the parang queen who accidentally shot and killed her brother. Rivas was charged with murder, but pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter and was freed on a bond.
Both the defence and the prosecution agreed that a non-custodial sentence would be appropriate, and the judge, Stanley John, concurred. But the reasons the court believed this are, I think, instructive.
These were the main facts of the case: (1) Rivas said she suffers from migraine headaches; (2) her nephew was playing music loudly and refused to turn down the volume when she asked; (3) an argument started - the nephew picked up a cutlass and Rivas picked up a gun; (4) Rivas said she didn't know what happened next; (5) what happened next was that she killed her brother.
John described the killing as an "unfortunate incident", obviously believing that Rivas, because of her migraine and the argument, was not in full possession of her faculties when she shot her brother. This is a valid principle of our legal system, but it leads to a contradiction. If a temporary state such as a migraine is accepted as a valid excuse for loss of emotional control, why aren't more long-term factors - like continual battering by a spouse, say, or physical abuse as a child - also accepted as mitigating causes? After all, there is a high proportion of migraine-suffers who never become violent. But the proportion of abused people who don't have violent tendencies is much, much lower.
There is also the issue of why John believed Rivas. Logically, Rivas could have been lying about both her migraine and not knowing what she had done. But John referred to the testimonials submitted, which included pleas for leniency from Fr. Joseph Kavanaugh, Holly Betaudier, Senior Superintendent Celestine Richards and various paranderos, teachers and friends. (Someone like me might not have been treated so leniently by the Court, since for every one person who would testify to my good character, the prosecution could find ten religious fundamentalists to testify that I am a servant of the devil.) Thanks to these testimonials, and because she is a middle-aged Catholic woman, the Court freed Rivas on the basis that she no longer posed a threat to society.
Now I have no problem with Rivas going free. But it makes me wonder why, since the law is supposed to operate according to principle, convicted murderers just aren't locked away for life. After all, most murderers on Death Row also lost self-control, just like Rivas did. But the law considers them to still pose a threat, which is fair enough. But the law, in practice, also holds that middle-class people who kill must have temporarily taken leave of their senses, whereas poor people who kill are simply murderous and therefore deserve to be murdered in turn. And that's far from fair.
In the study of law, there is an area called "sociological jurisprudence", which deals with the effects of social phenomenon on law. There is also an area called "analytical jurisprudence", which involves articulating axioms and presenting methods to create a self-consistent system. It seems that, in our system, pull outweighs principle. Brad Boyce, Anthony Amoroso Centeno, and the five children of prominent citizens recently free of possession of marijuana charges all demonstrate this.
That is why pitbull owner Martin Cuthbert has been charged with manslaughter. The legal principle seems to be that a man who isn't rich shouldn't own a killing machine, since he is by definition irresponsible. So don't hold your breath waiting for any wealthy person to face a similar charge. You might get held for attempted suicide.
Kevin Baldeosingh's satirical column returns this week in the Independent.
Copyright ©1999 Kevin Baldeosingh