Once again, unfathomably and with unwelcome regularity, as in the recent cases concerning the VAT scandal and the disgraced former Chief Justice to name but a couple, the ordinary citizen is confronted with apparent injustices when a sentence is handed down that is universally considered as not remotely commensurate with the crime committed nor, more crucially, does it truly give credence to the immense deterrent ramifications and massive negative impact of the violation perpetrated.
It appears that Joe Public is not alone in this concern, as the applications of unjustifiable leniency, together with ineffective or inadequate sentences being handed down constrained by the current provisions at law, are the subject of deep concern being expressed by no less than an august body as the Council of Europe.
This entity further stated that any laws should reflect “effectiveness, whilst being proportionate and dissuasive”. Are ours thus endowed? We also have an ineffective Court of Appeal system as it is not empowered to increase any previous sentence, or impose further sanctions, but merely either confirm any sentence or reduce such!
In one case, we have the untimely demise of two beautiful young ladies cut down in the early spring of their lives as a direct result of a driver having driven his vehicle with “excessive speed” and moreover, whilst “not keeping a proper look out” (the magistrate’s words, not mine). However, the magistrate, in his ultimate wisdom, determined that although the accused was obviously guilty of driving in a careless manner, whilst speeding to compound matters, this neither constituted nor warranted a guilty verdict in the crucial area of negligent driving.
I consider myself to possess sufficient command of the English language yet I am struggling to comprehend how careless and negligent cannot ever but be established as one and the same thing?
For in their definitions, regardless of which lexicons are utilised to determine such, these words command the identical denotation.
Furthermore, it is beyond my limited intellect to comprehend how it can possibly be established that no negligence exists when one is found culpable of “not keeping a proper look out” (in plain English translated as a charge of driving without due care and attention) whilst driving at “excessive speed”, for I would argue that the two are inextricably linked.
It is my submission that being in charge of a motor vehicle is comparable to being in possession of a cocked and loaded gun which, in the wrong hands, is more dangerous than a standing army! In the USA, this type of crime is accurately and appropriated cited as ‘Vehicular Homicide’ and accordingly treated with the gravity it warrants.
There is nothing on earth that can compensate for the brutal and premature extinguishing of the light of two innocent girls’ lives, but the very least that the parents could have expected was to be given a modicum of solace through the provision of an adequate punishment to reflect the severity of the crime perpetrated. They never received this.
I venture to suggest that this sentence is not faintly compatible with the pain and suffering endured by the parents in this case nor with the crime when considering what the driver was found culpable of. For I would also argue that there is nothing in this life that could prepare one for the absolute horrendous ordeal of having to bury one’s child, and this is especially traumatic when that child is just starting out and developing in the rich tapestry of life. It is with immense regret that I submit that this is something that the parents may never fully recover from.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Search:
MALTATODAY
BUSINESSTODAY
Download MaltaToday Sunday issue front page in pdf file format
