Democracy and ethics

Peter Espeut, Gleaner Writer

There is at least one major difference between democracy and ethics: in democracy the majority rules, while conducting a poll to determine what is right and what is wrong might produce the totally wrong answer.

Judging from media reports, if a poll were taken in Buckfield to determine whether the police sergeant did the right thing when he put a fatal bullet into Ian Lloyd, he would be declared a hero.

What would be the result of a poll to determine whether people wanted to pay taxes or not? Based on what people actually do, I bet that if a poll were taken on whether it should be legal for persons with stones in their hands to walk into any home with a mango tree laden with ripe fruit, that might become legal; householders would be outvoted. People have said to me that they enjoy being able to listen to music from the dance down the street from their verandas; maybe those who consider night noises to be a nuisance would be outvoted. And shouldn't it be legal to taste what is offered for sale before you buy? I'll bet the sellers would be outvoted by the tasters.

What is right or wrong cannot be determined by taking a poll, for maybe people want the wrong things: like not to pay taxes, or not to look after their children. Some other means has to be found to determine right and wrong. Civilised countries resort to weighing and balancing the rights of all the parties involved, including the accused persons. This is what the security and judicial system is supposed to do: to make sure everyone is treated fairly. Acting outside of the judicial system - especially with extra-judicial killings - is fundamentally unjust because it exacts the ultimate punishment without examining all the relevant information to determine whether the punishment fits the crime.

Even if most Buckfield residents believe in capital punishment, surely they do not believe that it should be administered immediately on the spot!

Direct action

But then, we know that immediate communal beating within an inch of life is often the lot of a goat thief caught in the act in rural Jamaica, and sometimes the extra inch too! And persons thought to be homosexual might also suffer the same fate. This is people power - direct action - bypassing the rule of the state.

If this is what the people want, should they not be given the right? If the Buckfield crowd unanimously wanted Ian Lloyd dead, were they not right in encouraging the local police to carry out their wish? If democracy and ethics are both dependent on what the majority believe, then any democratic government should follow the wishes of the people and allow on-the-spot executions of persons caught in the act of committing crimes, shouldn't it?

This, of course, would be anarchy - the conduct of affairs without resorting to laws and a judicial system. Going through a judicial process is deemed to be a more civilised approach to governance because it allows a judgment to be arrived at, taking into account all the available and relevant information.

Was the perpetrator mentally ill, on mind-altering drugs, or provoked? These circumstances do not affect whether the person did the crime of which he is accused, but it might affect the sort of punishment to which he is sentenced. Extrajudicial killings are unjust for many reasons, but also because they ignore mitigating factors.

Jamaica has one of the highest - if not the highest - rate of extrajudicial killings by its security forces in the world, not something of which we should be proud. The Buckfield residents are alleged to have egged-on the police to kill Ian Lloyd, and he was shot in their name. Whether the sergeant is guilty of murder will be determined by a properly constituted court of law. That is the civilised way of doing things.

What I cannot understand is why the other policemen who were present have not been charged as accessories. An accurate report of what occurred should have been immediately submitted. They should not be allowed to get away with submitting an official report at variance with the videotape evidence. Their actions have seriously damaged the credibility of the Jamaica Constabulary Force.

Do we want our police to kill so many of our people every year in our name?

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and a Roman Catholic deacon.