THE EDITOR, Sir:
I HAVE often been impressed with the writings of the Opposition Spokesman on Justice, Delroy Chuck. Indeed, I think he an erudite jurists who seems to do his 'homework' before committing his thoughts to print. I am, therefore, befuddled by his recent statements in Parliament calling for the arming of the nation as his answer to the present crime wave.
Attorney-General Nicholson's response in The Gleaner of Friday, June 3, is most appropriate, and gives comfort to those who must have been thinking that our politicians have gone off their rockers. Whatever got into Mr. Chuck for him to have thought that this is the way to go? Does he not realise that this kind of 'remedy' would greatly increase the prevalence of gun fights? Would this not only heighten fear and anxiety among the populace, not to mention the likelihood of increasing the murder rate?
Is it not possible that many persons may have been spared 'execution' because criminals were of the opinion that the victim was unarmed and therefore less likely to retaliate? When the dynamics are changed, won't the criminals shoot first then ask questions after? Mr. Chuck will you be willing to take responsibility for a life lost this way?
I suppose one could argue that people are being killed anyway, but I put it to you that the incidence of murder by the gun would increase dramatically.
Mr. Attorney-General, you are right, thank you for letting us know that you won't support this ill-thought-out abstraction, as, while it may appeal to certain public sentiments it would surely cause weeping , mourning and the gnashing of teeth.
I am, etc.,
PATRICK WALKER
Tracovic@Yahoo.com
Kingston
