The Editor, Sir:

I am stung by the criticisms of me made by 'Fed-up Jamaican' in the letter to you published last Thursday (October 23) under the rubric ' 'Hangman' pastor gets support'. Although the writer speaks from a wellspring of ignorance, I can nevertheless be forgiving. For people like me are at the mercy of editors who do not carry all my humble pronouncements, whether their medium be print or electronic. Then again, the writer might not have heard or read all of those utterances.

Helping to fight the monster

The writer claimed never to have heard me "utter a word": (a) when 11-year-old Aamir Scott was killed in St Mary or, when other children reported missing ended up dead; (b) in defence of children made orphans by the killing of their parents and (c) in face of cries, heard nightly on television, for justice during protests against the police. He asks cynically, do I "want the crime to continue?" In the same vein, he implies that being someone "who should be helping to fight the (monster) of crime", I attack "someone strong enough to speak out against it". The latter "someone", of course, is Pastor Terrence Brown, who was reported as volunteering his services as hangman if no one else could be found to perform the function.

With respect, none of these criticisms is in any way justified or justifiable. Now I am credited with having persuaded the Government to refer its raft of anti-crime bills to a Joint select committee of Parliament for the purpose of receiving submissions from interested quarters (such as my office) and to report thereon to the Parliament. I did so in a letter to the Honourable Prime Minister, dated September 8, in which I stated in part:

"The office shares the grave concern of all right-thinking persons over the unprecedented surge in gun killings a few months aback and, the pervasive scourge of serious crimes, particularly those involving the use of lethal weapons, as well as the phenomenon of the reported barter trading in firearms and narcotics. We are keenly aware of the responsibility of Government, the executive arm of the state, to protect life, limb and property, under the rule of law. Loud, persistent and sometimes understandable cries for draconian measures to combat this unacceptable state of affairs can by no means be dismissed."

Moreover, in my own presentation to the committee, I stated the following:

"The Office of the Public Defender empathises with the Government and, the Opposition in this Honourable House, in its understandable and demonstrated resolve to employ legislative mechanisms or devices to cope with the pervasive scourge of serious crimes: in particular, the inexorable rise in firearm-related offences and, the phenomena or upsurge of alleged incidents of heinous crime against children and young persons; women and girls, the old, indigent and helpless.

On Tuesday of last week, I issued a press release condemning the reported murder of District Constable Venet Guthrie and other criminal acts of wanton savagery in recent times, particularly against women, children, the aged and the helpless. Those who do or who are minded to practise their cold savagery should take no succour, aid or comfort from recent criticisms made by this office of the terms of anti-crime measures now before Parliament.

More than 1,000 Jamaicans of both sexes and all ages have been murdered in 2008. The barbarous fashion in which those and other crimes of all varieties have been committed is truly terrifying. We extend condolences to all families.

In that very same release, I expressed the one abiding reservation I have against the execution of capital punishment: that the judgement of trial juries not being infallible and, our legal system (like all others) not being perfect, there is the ever present and ghastly risk of a man being found guilty, according to law, but innocent in fact and being put to death.

Fair trial

In several radio interviews since the issue of that release, none of which FED-UP JAMAICAN seems to have heard, I put forward my own belief that I could think of no rational reason why, if the real or actual perpetrators are arrested, charged, afforded the right of a fair trial by an impartial court established by law, as well as the right of resort to such appellate steps as are available, they should not be made to surrender their own lives by way of retributive justice. Of course, I do not for one moment accept that capital punishment is a deterrent to murder. Far from it. But it may well amount to condign punishment, having regard to the circumstances of the case. However, because of the fallibility of the jury's judgment and the undoubted imperfections in legal systems, ours in particular, I regret to say, I cannot find myself in agreement with the protagonists.

As for my supposed silence over protests against police excesses, it deserves to be noted that our office is currently investigating no fewer than 20 instances of alleged unlawful killings by members of the security forces. This is in discharge of the mandate "to protect and enforce the rights of citizens", in particular the fundamental human and other rights guaranteed by the Constitution and of which the Government is guarantor. This is because the security forces are, or are supposed to be, the law enforcement agents of the Government.

Full cooperation

I hope that I have stated enough to convince the reasonable person, among whom I hope FED-UP JAMAICAN may be numbered, that I no more "want the crime to continue" than does anyone else. Nor am I afflicted with the utopian fallacy that criminal activity will ever end. But I share the hope that with the full cooperation of the citizenry, the improvement of the investigative and forensic skills of the constabulary and the help of Almighty God, the incidence will be reduced to manageable proportions.

I am, etc.,

W. EARL WITTER, QC, JP

PUBLIC DEFENDER