BishopAccountability.org
	Offenders and the Rule of Law By I.m. Beck Times of Malta August 6, 2011 http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110806/opinion/Offenders-and-the-rule-of-law.378965 The news that the paedophile priests (one of them now an ex-priest) have been convicted and will be banged up to enjoy the tender mercies of the Corradino Hilton when their appeal is dismissed was greeted with satisfaction by most people. Their crimes were heinous and put them beyond the pale. The Curia didn't wait for the appeal process to be exhausted either but came right out with it and apologised for the behaviour of the two thugs, which is to its great credit, and, just as creditably, promised to do better in the future when it comes to investigation and prevention. The length of time the criminals will eventually have to serve in Corradino was not, on the other hand, greeted with universal approval. A significant number of comments were directed towards the court which, with respect, should have been directed towards what its denizens sometimes describe as the highest institution of the land, even while the rest of us, with perhaps a better grasp of constitutional law than your common or garden MP, classify it as one of the three (four if you include the press) pillars of a democratic state. It is the House of Representatives that has to legislate to change the law when it comes to the length of sentences that have to be served when crimes are committed and people convicted. The magistrate might feel that a higher sentence might be appropriate but if the law, as it does in many cases, imposes a maximum tariff, the magistrate, however much s/he might be gagging to, cannot go over the top, irrespective of how much the media bays and bellows. Equally, if previous cases have indicated a consistent level of tariff even within the range legislated for, the magistrate should give due consideration to the legitimate expectations of the accused when it comes to give judgement. Going too high, in the wider scheme of things, is as bad as going too low and if the legislator fails to his duty and legislate on the basis of what society needs, then it is the fault of the legislator and not the adjudicator. And the legislators, who are often members of the legal profession, might be well advised if, in the matter of criminal law, they remember which hat they're wearing when they make some profound utterance. For instance, it's a bit incongruous for one of Labour's spokesmen for justice, Herrera by name, to come over all heroic on BondìPlus when talking about his exploits in battling for his clients over the matter of denial of legal advice when being interrogated and then for him to berate the government for – according to him – messing up the introduction of the right to interrogation when it got round to doing that little thing. It's a bit like ranting and raving in the House against domestic violence and then trying to persuade the court to let off your client because, hey, he'd been having a bevvy and it was just a bit of high spirits, don't you know? Or being bowed and scraped to by certain members of the judiciary who (quite justifiably) want a pay rise and want the opposition on board with this while at the same time being a supplicant at their table on behalf of clients. Conflict of interest, anyone? How do you spell that, precisely? Getting back to the main thrust of this week's column, though, many comments, even those by otherwise well-informed folk, hinted towards the "why did we bother with a court case", "why were the lawyers trying to get them off" and "what do you mean, they appealed" type of question. The only good question was "why did it take so long"? and to this I don't have an answer except to say it was shameful. To the other questions, we bothered with a court case and they had lawyers because that's what the rule of law requires and you don't want to live in a country where the rule of law is compromised. We almost did, back in the 1970s and 1980s, and believe me, it wasn't fun. And before you run away with the argument that, yes, but the lawyers shouldn't have tried to get them off, just put yourselves in the shoes of people who love these thugs: Wouldn't you want your brother to get as good a defence as possible, always within the law (and there's no indication at all that this case wasn't conducted within the law)? Yes, you would, just as you would if you were the accused yourself. Just because our instant-gratification culture wants results and it wants them now, this doesn't mean that there may be any compromise with the rule of law and there's an end to it. In other words, lay off the lawyers and the system, you never know when you might need them and when you do, you'll want them to be in top shape. It was a great week for rock: first Santana, then Xirka Rock and then Zucchero and I was given a DAB+ Radio on which I can listen to All Rock, the station powered by people with long hair, for all that many of its listeners (and its prime mover) don't have any. I am happy to report that DAB+ works in Gozo, too, nowadays, which is rather good, since for much of my leisure time I'm there and listening to rock radio is what leisure time is all about. On the food front, we didn't go anywhere new and I was kindly entertained domestically on a couple of occasions, where the food was great down home stuff and the company just as good but one doesn't write about one's friends in greater detail than that, even to compliment them. Contact: imbocca@gmail.com
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.