Politics and insensitivity converged recently with comments about vigilante action and reasonable/appropriate response to attacks on the person and property. The rights of enjoyment of property and safety of the person have been abrogated with continuing emphasis on the rights of the criminals. Some balance is urgently needed. States, as the guardians of law and order, assume the responsibility for the protection of citizens and punishment for those who transgress the law. This right of the State cannot and should not replace or abrogate citizens' rights, especially those relating to defence of the person and family, safety and full use and enjoyment of property.
Disregard for private property is endemic in Trinidad and Tobago. Trespassing seems to be the order of the day. There are many instances where individuals' private lands are used as a thoroughfare as it provides a shortcut to a main thoroughfare. Generally, reports to the police are not acted upon and very often confronting the offenders results in them abusing and threatening the owners. This type of lawlessness is also demonstrated by the prevailing attitude that the appearance of fruits on trees somehow transforms private property to a public one, making it available to all sundry. Of course if the owner was to confront the trespasser and hurts him/her in self-defence, then it is the owner who is treated as the criminal.
There are sayings like "justice is blind" and "the law is an a--." These are brought to life by the cases where law-abiding citizens, who had been verbally and physically threatened by fruit-raiders and intruders, responded in self-defence were charged and penalised. One's property is one's private space. It becomes part of one's consciousness and being. It should be sacred as well as inviolable. Violation of this space is tantamount to violation of the person and thus this offence must be treated as such. If life is sacred, as criminals and their advocates claim, then it is also equally applicable to the victims and potential ones. That which is sacred must be defended and protected. In light of this, the argument that reasonable or appropriate force needs to be used in life-threatening situations is unbelievably, stupidly unrealistic. Why so? Armed intruders have in some cases killed their victims even when they did not resist, in other instances wounded them and in some others only threatened the victims. There are thus three possible outcomes and if the law is to be sensible then there needs to be three categories of appropriate or reasonable response.
Further, in order to be legally safe, the victim must be able to determine or divine or intuit the intent of the transgressor before a response can be made if the sacred duty of protection of the person and family is to be observed. In effect the law has imposed an impossible burden on the victim. Instead of prosecuting the criminal, the law persecutes the victim. To add insult to injury, the judge/magistrate arrogates unto himself/herself divine powers, for to charge a person for using unjustifiable force is to declare that the intent of the criminal was known. Common sense must be applied to bring back some sort of balance into the criminal justice system. People who violate the inalienable rights of others must have theirs forfeited as punishment.
If such laws are not in place then chaos is the sure result for there would be no real incentive for lawful behaviour. No society has ever existed where punishment for transgressing laws did not exist. In the same vein, when the State violates the justifiably reasonable right of safety to the person, family and property of citizens, then it cannot, on any moral, ethical or legal (in terms of the spirit of the law) grounds, deny citizens, either as groups or individuals, the right of self-defence. No right thinking person wants to engage in so-called vigilante action but if such protection is not afforded then what choice do people have. The self-preservation instinct is a strong one and hence punishment has always and will always serve as a deterrent to crime. The instinct to protect one's family is even stronger and it is about time that the laws here take cognisance of this.
Prakash Persad
is the director of Swaha Inc