You have seen me talk about the mad­den­ing­ly out­ra­geous sen­tences met­ed out by Jamaican judges even as the coun­try con­tin­ue to be drenched in blood.
A moth­er beats to death her two-year-old tod­dler for defe­cat­ing on her­self. A retard­ed judge gives her a three ‑year sen­tence sus­pend­ed for two years.

Murderers who are arrest­ed by the police are sum­mar­i­ly grant­ed pal­try cash bail and returned to the streets, regard­less of the fact that they were already on bail for hav­ing mur­dered and had gone back to kill, some­times up to six sep­a­rate times.

Instead of fix­ing these glar­ing incon­sis­ten­cies in the jus­tice dis­pen­sa­tion process the brain-dead deci­sion mak­ers will lec­ture you on the virtues of secur­ing the rights of mur­ders. Never mind that the mur­dered and assault­ed par­ties had their right to life and safe­ty tak­en from them with­out any­one speak­ing on their behalf.

Shockingly, as gang­sters con­tin­ue to mur­der whomev­er they want with­out any vis­i­ble or dis­cern­able fear of the law, the author­i­ties con­tin­ue to embark on a process which may only be char­ac­ter­ized as the response of the peo­ple who pre­tend­ed that the naked emper­or was in fact clothed.
Those in the dias­po­ra who brave the killings and return to set­tle are tar­get­ed by gang­sters, some­times with the aid and bless­ings of their rel­a­tives and are usu­al­ly vicious­ly and sense­less­ly murdered.

The mur­ders are gen­er­al­ly car­ried out in the most graph­ic and bar­bar­ic of fash­ion. They sim­ply wash away the blood and con­tin­ue on as if they nev­er existed.
We have been talk­ing about these con­tra­dic­tions which are eas­i­ly fix­able in our coun­try, yet admin­is­tra­tions of both the JLP and the PNP have ignored the seri­ous­ness of the con­se­quences of crime on the soci­ety, focus­ing instead on adding more and more lay­ers of over­sight to the already feck­less police depart­ment ren­der­ing it even more use­less to the fight at hand.

We have decid­ed that wher­ev­er pos­si­ble we will bring you the graph­ic images of what is real­ly hap­pen­ing even while the world’s atten­tion is hijacked and forcibly divert­ed to the car­ni­val in Washington DC.
We can in no way con­tin­ue to pre­tend that this wan­ton and grue­some way of life is nor­mal. We can­not con­tin­ue to hide these images and pre­tend that we do not have prob­lems. We sim­ply can­not con­tin­ue to hide these fac­tu­al images while pre­tend­ing that it’s not so bad, all the while telling our­selves that there are killings everywhere.

I call on the leg­is­la­ture to stop play­ing pol­i­tics with this exis­ten­tial prob­lem and get to the task of draft­ing, debat­ing and pass­ing laws which make it clear that killings, rapes, vio­lent crimes will no longer be tolerated.
At the same time, it is imper­a­tive to attach manda­to­ry min­i­mum sen­tences to vio­lent crimes, there­by remov­ing from the Island’s crim­i­nal-lov­ing judges the abil­i­ty to set mur­der­ers and oth­er vio­lent felons free with the slight­est of slap on the wrist even for murder.

The court’s sab­o­tage of the process has over the last sev­er­al decades con­tributed to the nation’s crime tra­jec­to­ry. It has undoubt­ed­ly cre­at­ed and aid­ed malaise and apa­thy in law-enforce­ment on the one hand and on the oth­er hand cre­at­ed cor­rup­tion in some members.
The aver­age law abid­ing Jamaican are left to won­der whether they will ever again have a life when they can live their lives in ways that are less than caged ani­mals dread­ing the butcher’s knife.
This sit­u­a­tion can be reme­died all is required is the will to do it but both sides of the polit­i­cal divide must stop pan­der­ing to the faux forces of human rights which have set up shop in our country.

The Supreme Court ruled 5 – 4 Tuesday to uphold President Donald Trump’s ban on allow­ing trav­el from six coun­tries in a major deci­sion that inspired out­rage from the court’s lib­er­al jus­tices. In a sep­a­rate writ­ten dis­sent joined only by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Sonia Sotomayor used Trump’s inflam­ma­to­ry rhetoric about Muslims to under­score the “stark par­al­lels” between the major­i­ty opin­ion and one of the high court’s most shame­ful moments: Korematsu v. United States, the deci­sion that upheld Japanese intern­ment dur­ing World War II. .

“A rea­son­able observ­er would con­clude that the Proclamation was moti­vat­ed by anti-Muslim ani­mus,” Sotomayor wrote. “The major­i­ty holds oth­er­wise by ignor­ing the facts, mis­con­stru­ing our legal prece­dent, and turn­ing a blind eye to the pain and suf­fer­ing the Proclamation inflicts upon count­less fam­i­lies and indi­vid­u­als, many of whom are United States citizens.”

In the major­i­ty opin­ion, the jus­tices explic­it­ly over­ruled the 1944 Korematsu deci­sion, but Justice Sotomayor reject­ed their argu­ments, say­ing that their actions “mere­ly replaces one ‘grave­ly wrong’ deci­sion with another”

In the inter­ven­ing years since Korematsu, our Nation has done much to leave its sor­did lega­cy behind … Today, the Court takes the impor­tant step of final­ly over­rul­ing Korematsu, denounc­ing it as “grave­ly wrong the day it was decided.”…This for­mal repu­di­a­tion of a shame­ful prece­dent is laud­able and long over­due. But it does not make the majority’s deci­sion here accept­able or right. By blind­ly accept­ing the Government’s mis­guid­ed invi­ta­tion to sanc­tion a dis­crim­i­na­to­ry pol­i­cy moti­vat­ed by ani­mos­i­ty toward a dis­fa­vored group, all in the name of a super­fi­cial claim of nation­al secu­ri­ty, the Court rede­ploys the same dan­ger­ous log­ic under­ly­ing Korematsu and mere­ly replaces one “grave­ly wrong” deci­sion with another.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote the major­i­ty opin­ion and dis­pensed with the reli­gious debate in order to focus sole­ly on whether Trump sat­is­fied the demands of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In response, Sotomayor argued that Trump’s exec­u­tive order should have been struck down based on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which ensures that the gov­ern­ment “can­not favor or dis­fa­vor one reli­gion over another.”

In reach­ing that con­clu­sion, Sotomayor flat­ly reject­ed the government’s request to ignore Trump’s mul­ti­ple state­ments about Muslims and his ear­li­est descrip­tion of the exec­u­tive order as a “total and com­plete shut­down” of Muslims enter­ing the US. “Given President Trump’s fail­ure to cor­rect the rea­son­able per­cep­tion of his appar­ent hos­til­i­ty toward the Islamic faith, it is unsur­pris­ing that the President’s lawyers have, at every step in the low­er courts, failed in their attempts to laun­der the Proclamation of its dis­crim­i­na­to­ry taint,” Sotomayor wrote.

Sotomayor com­pared Trump’s many broad­sides against Islam, which com­prise sev­er­al para­graphs of her dis­sent, with the Court’s recent 7 – 2 rul­ing in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, not­ing, “The Court recent­ly found less per­va­sive offi­cial expres­sions of hos­til­i­ty and the fail­ure to dis­avow them to be con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly sig­nif­i­cant.” In the after­math of the Masterpiece case, some legal experts had sug­gest­ed that Justice Anthony Kennedy’s rul­ing, which depend­ed on hos­tile state­ments made about reli­gion by Colorado pub­lic offi­cials, might fore­shad­ow his rejec­tion of Trump’s trav­el ban on sim­i­lar grounds. It didn’t.

Sotomayor said Trump’s order fails to even clear the stan­dard set by “ratio­nal-basis review,” the low­est bar of judi­cial scruti­ny, because the “admin­is­tra­tive review” under­gird­ing it is too uncon­vinc­ing in its aims and secre­tive in its process to dis­tin­guish the order from its pub­lic his­to­ry as a Muslim ban.

She was sim­i­lar­ly uncon­vinced by the government’s con­tention that the trav­el ban did not tar­get Islam specif­i­cal­ly, call­ing the inclu­sion of North Korea and Venezuela on the list of pro­hib­it­ed regions “insub­stan­tial, if not entire­ly sym­bol­ic.” The order still “over­whelm­ing­ly tar­gets Muslim-major­i­ty nations,” she wrote, adding that the US “remains whol­ly unable to artic­u­late any cred­i­ble nation­al-secu­ri­ty inter­est that would go unad­dressed by the cur­rent statu­to­ry scheme absent the Proclamation.” If any­thing, the ben­e­fits of such an order would be redun­dant giv­en exist­ing immi­gra­tion vet­ting pro­to­cols, she argued.

As a fine point in con­clud­ing her dis­sent, Sotomayor bor­rowed an approach pop­u­lar­ized by her late, con­ser­v­a­tive col­league, Justice Antonin Scalia. When he espe­cial­ly dis­agreed with a Court rul­ing, he would dis­pense with tra­di­tion­al pro­to­col and end his dis­sent­ing opin­ions with­out the usu­al “I respect­ful­ly dis­sent” in favor of some plain­er lan­guage. Sotomayor opt­ed for the harsh­er option: “Our Constitution demands, and our coun­try deserves, a Judiciary will­ing to hold the coör­di­nate branch­es to account when they defy our most sacred legal com­mit­ments. Because the Court’s deci­sion today has failed in that respect, with pro­found regret, I dis­sent.” https://​www​.moth​er​jones​.com/​p​o​l​i​t​i​c​s​/​2​0​1​8​/​0​6​/​s​o​t​o​m​a​y​o​r​-​d​i​s​s​e​n​t​-​t​r​u​m​p​-​t​r​a​v​e​l​-​b​an/

This man lying face down was report­ed­ly mur­dered on a con­struc­tion site this after­noon. Details are still sketchy, we will update this sto­ry as soon as more infor­ma­tion becomes available.

Police report that the deceased is sub-con­trac­tor Keith Osbourne, 56, oth­er­wise called ‘Smoker’, who was mur­dered in Palmers Cross last Thursday.

Osbourne, who is from New Harbour Village in St Catherine, was said to be con­duct­ing repairs with his team in the area when he was approached by armed men who shot him mul­ti­ple times.

The streets report that Osbourne has deep polit­i­cal con­nec­tions and con­trary to the police san­i­tized descrip­tion of the deceased he is a “Don” in the area. Word on the street is that there are threat­ened reper­cus­sions for his death.
Story updated.

THERE IS NO OVERSTATING IT, YOU SIMPLY CANNOT MAKE THESE THINGS UP. BUT FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH WE SIMPLY HAVE TO KEEP BRINGING THESE THINGS TO THE FORE.

Fifty-three (53) year old Delreta Smith of a Clarendon Address beat her two-year-old baby to death because the child defe­cat­ed on herself.
Never mind that for all prac­ti­cal pur­pos­es that is exact­ly what most two-year-old babies do.

Nevertheless, the moth­er of 12 — two of whom were born after the grue­some death of two-year-old Sherene Smith in 2006 — was in the May Pen Hospital await­ing surgery when the judge Courtney Daye hand­ed down the sen­tence which may only be summed up as insane and an invi­ta­tion for moth­ers who may be dis­traught and or stressed to sim­ply beat their chil­dren to death.

In one of the most egre­gious instances of judi­cial mis­con­duct, the moron­ic ass­wipe of a judge sen­tenced Smith to three years in prison then spat on the baby’s grave by sus­pend­ing the sen­tence for two years.
Threee years sus­pend­ed for two years for the bru­tal and cal­lous mur­der of a two year old infant! Simply put, if she stays out of trou­ble for two years, she will not spend a sin­gle day in prison for slaugh­ter­ing her infant child.

In seek­ing to jus­ti­fy what he clear­ly knows is an inde­fen­si­ble act, he robed ass­wipe tried to explain away his actions. Daye said he took into account the fact that Smith plead­ed guilty on the first rel­e­vant date and is enti­tled to a 50 per­cent reduc­tion in her sen­tence. “There is a pub­lic out­cry against vio­lence towards chil­dren and oth­er vul­ner­a­ble per­sons, but this is not the worst case of manslaugh­ter. It is not a case of neglect or con­stant abuse,” he said. He not­ed, too, that the case had been before the courts for 12 years (11 years in the parish court) and that she has no pre­vi­ous con­vic­tions. “If her tri­al had pro­ceed­ed in a rea­son­able time and she was giv­en a cus­to­di­al sen­tence, she would have served it and be out already,” Daye reasoned.

This is part and par­cel of the pol­i­cy push of Justice Minister Delroy Chuck. A pol­i­cy which has zero to do with jus­tice and every­thing to do with appear­ances that the sys­tem is func­tion­ing properly.
If you are not out­raged as I am you are def­i­nite­ly a part of the problem.
This mon­ster of a judge fell hook line and sinker to defense lawyer Sean Kingston’s wiles when he stat­ed to the court “She is fight­ing a par­tic­u­lar ill­ness and may not have long with us”.
What the fuck does any of that have to do with the killing of this help­less, inno­cent child?
If she was that sick how could she have beat­en her kid to death and worse why is she still alive twelve[12] years after mur­der­ing the poor baby?

This is what obtains as a jus­tice sys­tem in Jamaica the crim­i­nal par­adise of the world, a place where you go to com­mit mur­der and walk away Scott free.

If you do not find this rep­re­hen­si­ble you may be among those who sup­port rip­ping away chil­dren from their par­ents because they dare to seek asy­lum. The total­i­ty of the Judge’s rea­son­ing in his own sum­ma­tion is encap­su­lat­ed in these sentences.

(1)” It is not a case of neglect or con­stant abuse”. As long as a mur­der­ous par­ent does not sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly abuse a child(as per this judge) it is real­ly not a big deal if you beat and kill your child in a one-off situation.
(2) The case had been before the courts for 12 years. What does it mat­ter how long the case has been before the courts? In many cas­es, the delays are a direct result of col­lu­sion between these very judges and defense attor­neys with a view to hav­ing the case tossed out eventually.
(3)If her tri­al had pro­ceed­ed in a rea­son­able time and she was giv­en a cus­to­di­al sen­tence, she would have served it and be out already, Really? So because of the length of time, the case lan­guished in the sys­tem the offend­er is enti­tled to a mere slap on the wrist? Is it any won­der this judge did not sim­ply toss the case? More impor­tant­ly, what he is say­ing is that if the case was decid­ed from the time it was brought she would have served prison time and would have been released already. This state­ment is telling because it reveals exact­ly how these com­mu­nists think. three years for mur­der­ing a child!

This sto­ry has been updat­ed since it was first posted.

Judge revokes bail for white collar crimes/​Jamaican judges release murderers on bail daily.

With our inor­di­nate­ly high Jamaican crime rate, it seems to me it would be a good idea to use what­ev­er leg­isla­tive, judi­cial and oth­er tools we have avail­able to help the front line work­ers and by exten­sion pro­vide a much-need­ed respite from the bloodletting.

I say this to say that the leg­isla­tive part of our Government has a duty to pro­pose, debate, and pass mean­ing­ful leg­is­la­tion which is com­men­su­rate with the com­plex capa­bil­i­ties of today’s criminals.
At the same time, I under­stand the pull of pop­ulism in pol­i­tics and the need to dis­agree with and oppose every­thing the oth­er par­ty does. By doing so leg­is­la­tors have con­demned our cit­i­zens to con­tin­ue to be sub­ject­ed to an inor­di­nate crime rate by dumb­ing them down to accept­ing a blink­ered zero-sum black or white per­spec­tive to problem-solving.

Simply put Legislators can come togeth­er with a com­mon­al­i­ty of pur­pose and pass tough laws that actu­al­ly serve as a deter­rent to crime. The Government (oppo­si­tion includ­ed) can come togeth­er to ensure that law enforce­ment is giv­en the tools to do the job right while hold­ing them respon­si­ble and accountable.

These are not black and white issues the solu­tions to com­plex issues are gen­er­al­ly found in the grey. Additionally, Judges can begin to hon­or their oaths of office by demon­strat­ing fideli­ty and good stew­ard­ship to the pub­lic’s trust.
The con­tin­u­a­tion of the shock­ing and dis­grace­ful prac­tice by judges who con­vert the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem into a revolv­ing door can­not be overemphasized.

How are we to have faith in the sys­tem when a motorist who delib­er­ate­ly mow down and kill a police offi­cer who law­ful­ly sig­naled him to stop is giv­en a (16) six­teen-month prison sen­tence? What could be the jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for such abu­sive use of judi­cial pow­er and how is it even pos­si­ble that this is allowed to stand?
The answer to some of these ques­tions lies in the mis­guid­ed per­cep­tion which exists with­in the frame­work of judi­cial independence.

The Independence the judi­cia­ry is giv­en comes from the peo­ple. Those are cod­i­fied into laws defined and passed by the peo­ple. It fol­lows there­fore that the peo­ple have a right and a respon­si­bil­i­ty to alter, or change those laws when they are no longer serv­ing the pur­pose for which they were intended.,
If the judi­cia­ry is allowed to oper­ate out­side of over­sight and con­trol of the peo­ple, then giv­en enough time, it is itself in dan­ger of becom­ing a behe­moth which is anti­thet­i­cal to the inter­est of the people.
We may already be at that point.

It is impor­tant to remem­ber that Paul Manafort is only accused of com­mit­ting white col­lar non-vio­lent crimes. If a judge right here in the west­ern hemi­sphere is suf­fi­cient­ly aware that she under­stands the need to pro­tect the peo­ple from a non-vio­lent alleged white-col­lar crim­i­nal, why is it that Jamaican Judges are act­ing out­side statu­to­ry laws and com­mon-sense by releas­ing vio­lent mur­der­ers back onto the streets as soon as the police man­age to arrest them? As a con­se­quence they go back to mur­der­ing wit­ness­es and those to whom they are opposed, How then do we expect to low­er our mur­der num­bers and make Jamaica a place in which investors and busi­ness peo­ple want to live, raise their fam­i­lies and do business?

When the judi­cia­ry is allowed to release dan­ger­ous killers back onto the streets after they are arrest­ed after killing and being arrest­ed on six sep­a­rate mur­ders we are at that point.
When the judi­cia­ry is allowed to con­tin­ue to make the straw­man argu­ment that bail is not sup­posed to be pun­ish­ment we are already at that point because the law speaks specif­i­cal­ly to when bail may be denied pre-trial.

After being grant­ed bail with strict con­di­tions for alleged non-vio­lent white col­lar crimes Trump’s for­mer cam­paign man­ag­er Paul Manafort was remand­ed to Federal cus­tody by US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson last Friday.
The Feds allege that Manafort made attempts to tam­per with wit­ness­es who are slat­ed to tes­ti­fy in the Government’s case against him.
Understanding her role in the dis­pen­sa­tion of Justice Judge Berman-Jackson exem­pli­fied judi­cial responsibility.

“The harm, in this case, is harm to the admin­is­tra­tion of jus­tice and harm to the integri­ty of the court’s sys­tem,” Berman Jackson told Manafort in court.
“This is not mid­dle school. I can’t take his cell­phone,” she said of Manafort. “I thought about this long and hard, Mr. Manafort. I have no appetite for this.”
Manafort’s tri­al is set to begin in September, mean­ing Manafort may spend the remain­der of time locked away pend­ing his tri­al and if con­vict­ed he may be look­ing at a very long prison sen­tence. At age 69 it is not a stretch to imag­ine that Paul Manafort may nev­er be a free man ever again.
His friends were “shell­shocked” in the wake of the judge’s deci­sion to revoke his bail in light of the new indictments.

Whether Judge Berman Jackson meant that she had no appetite to restrain Manafort’s free­dom beyond those already imposed or that she has no appetite, for his behav­ior she nev­er­the­less ful­ly under­stood the bur­den of her respon­si­bil­i­ty to ensure that the peo­ple’s case against the accused is respected.
And so she had pre­cious lit­tle choice in send­ing him to jail, even though her hands were not tied by a manda­to­ry clause in the Bail Act forc­ing her to do so.
That is how judges are sup­posed to act, not act­ing in their own inter­est based on their nar­row world-view.

“I don’t feel safe being around the streets with offi­cers shoot­ing peo­ple,” a res­i­dent said.
blob:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ae446b6a-a553-4e89-8c48-d02290f735d1

Four new­ly released videos of a San Francisco police offi­cer shoot­ing a flee­ing man in the back as he ran by pedes­tri­ans add details to an episode that enraged onlooker

The videos raised many ques­tions at the town hall meet­ing. Police say the offi­cer fired only after see­ing Barcenas pull out a firearm. Critics con­tend that the offi­cer act­ed recklessly.

“Those videos do not look good,” said Supervisor Aaron Peskin, who rep­re­sents District 3, where the shoot­ing took place, accord­ing to The San Francisco Chronicle.

The episode unfold­ed just after mid­night on June 9, as many peo­ple in North Beach cel­e­brat­ed the Golden State Warriors’ NBA title win.

Police said two offi­cers were on patrol when they saw four men stand­ing on the cor­ner of Grant Avenue and Vallejo Street. The men, accord­ing to the police press release, had “an open alco­hol con­tain­er in pub­lic vio­la­tion.” One of the offi­cers approached the men while the oth­er parked their patrol vehicle.

In the video from one officer’s body-worn cam­era, audio is acti­vat­ed as he approach­es the men. While he ques­tions them, Barcenas takes off on foot along Grant Avenue.

Warning graph­ic videos

Body-Worn Camera 1

Body-Worn Camera 2

Surveillance Camera 1

Surveillance Camera 2

The offi­cer pur­sues Barcenas, and sec­onds lat­er Barcenas removes his jack­et. Police said this is when he reached for a gun. At this point in the video, as they run past sev­er­al peo­ple, the offi­cer fires two rounds from his ser­vice weapon, and Barcenas falls to the ground.

Moments after shoot­ing Barcenas, the offi­cer reports on his radio, “Shots fired. We’re going to need medics.”

In the video the offi­cer asks Barcenas, “Dude, dude, dude, you all right?”

At no point does the offi­cer or his part­ner, who runs up after the shoot­ing, attempt to pro­vide med­ical assis­tance to Barcenas, who is clear­ly unconscious.

A crowd begins to gath­er around the offi­cer, with one per­son shout­ing, “What the fuck you doing?!”

“Back up, homie,” the offi­cer responds. “Back up.”

Several oth­ers in the crowd repeat­ed­ly shout at the offi­cer, “Fuck you!”

When oth­er offi­cers arrive on the scene, the offi­cer who fired his weapon says, “He had a firearm. I don’t know where it is … He had, like, a TEC‑9.”

The videos do not appear to show Barcenas hold­ing a gun. Nor do they show offi­cers retriev­ing a pis­tol from him. Police lat­er released a pho­to of the gun he was alleged­ly carrying.

Barcenas, 28, remained in Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital on Friday. Police say he was shot at least one time in the back. The hos­pi­tal has report­ed­ly declined to release infor­ma­tion on his condition.

He faces mul­ti­ple charges, includ­ing delay­ing an offi­cer, car­ry­ing a con­cealed firearm, exhibit­ing a firearm and being a felon in pos­ses­sion of a firearm.

According to San Francisco’s KPIX-TV, Barcenas is well known to author­i­ties. He was shot three times by anoth­er San Francisco police offi­cer dur­ing a 2012 foot chase, after report­ed­ly pulling out a loaded TEC‑9 with an extend­ed magazine.

Scott said he released the videos in the inter­est of transparency.

Although sev­er­al peo­ple were near­by at the time of Saturday’s shoot­ing and were not injured, atten­dees of Thursday’s town hall ques­tioned the officer’s actions, accord­ing to the Chronicle.

“I’m very con­cerned about the shoot­ing,” said 62-year-old Theresa Flandrich. “I would’ve hoped there would’ve been some aware­ness that there are oth­er peo­ple here. It’s just shock­ing to me to see this.”

Natalie April, 24, said the videos are upsetting.

“I think you can tell from the video he was scared, and I don’t feel safe being around the streets with offi­cers shoot­ing peo­ple,” she said. “I think it’s beyond dis­ap­point­ing. I’m floored.”

The San Francisco Police Department’s gen­er­al order on use of force states that offi­cers may use dead­ly force only “as a last resort when rea­son­able alter­na­tives have been exhaust­ed or are not fea­si­ble to pro­tect the safe­ty of the pub­lic and police officers.”

The dis­trict attorney’s office and the city’s Department of Police Accountability are con­duct­ing inde­pen­dent investigations.
https://​www​.huff​in​g​ton​post​.com/​e​n​t​r​y​/​v​i​d​e​o​s​-​c​a​l​i​f​o​r​n​i​a​-​c​o​p​-​s​h​o​o​t​s​-​f​l​e​e​i​n​g​-​m​a​n​-​b​u​s​t​l​i​n​g​-​s​i​d​e​w​a​l​k​_​u​s​_​5​b​2​4​2​2​3​8​e​4​b​0​5​6​b​2​2​6​3​a​0​e19

The crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem is a com­plex web of dif­fer­ent agen­cies which ought to work cohe­sive­ly togeth­er for the fair and time­ly dis­pen­sa­tion of jus­tice in order that a demo­c­ra­t­ic soci­ety may have a chance to survive.
At the tip of the spear is the police who are the very first judge of events, they are giv­en wide lat­i­tude to de-esca­late and even ignore some minor infrac­tions gen­er­al­ly by issu­ing a warn­ing. That lat­i­tude does not include dis­cre­tion to ignore or for­give seri­ous crimes.

Then there are the pros­e­cu­tors and defense lawyers, judges, court stenog­ra­phers and oth­ers who make the court sys­tem work, then there are oth­ers who work on social reports which ought to allow the court the abil­i­ty to arrive at just and cor­rect sen­tenc­ing . Prison offi­cers who work to ensure that those who are incar­cer­at­ed are looked after and the list goes on and on.

Nevertheless, despite the pha­lanx of dif­fer­ent pro­fes­sion­als who make the jus­tice sys­tem churn along there is a gen­er­al atti­tude in our coun­try which seem to believe that if the police depart­ment is fixed and all of a sud­den becomes the best it can be the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem will begin to oper­ate as a well-oiled machine.

This is the fur­thest thing from real­i­ty, the fact of the mat­ter is that the Prison sys­tem, the local bar, and the bench are all just as bro­ken as the police force. The Government is embark­ing on a process of reform­ing the JCF and frankly, that can­not hap­pen soon enough. Even if the JCF is renamed rebrand­ed and retro­fit­ted to be the best it can be, the fair and equi­table dis­pen­sa­tion of jus­tice will only be a dis­tant dream with the oth­er bro­ken parts of the jus­tice deliv­ery sys­tem still in shambles.

National Security Minister Horace Chang said reform of the JCF will not only entail tech­no­log­i­cal improve­ments or a sim­ple name change but will be about estab­lish­ing a robust account­abil­i­ty frame­work, enhanced capac­i­ty build­ing, cul­ture change and improve­ment in the stan­dards of ser­vice deliv­ery. “We are far advanced with the draft­ing of the leg­is­la­tion to gov­ern the new police ser­vice as well as an effec­tive over­sight mech­a­nism for polic­ing func­tions. The leg­is­la­tion is sched­uled for tabling in Parliament this leg­isla­tive year.”

The pri­vate bar is equal­ly as bro­ken, every year there are nev­er-end­ing tales of inno­cent Jamaicans being fleeced out of their hard-earned resources by lawyers. Generally, these lawyers who know how to manip­u­late their way around the law are hard­ly ever held accountable.
On the rare occa­sion that they are arrest­ed, they are giv­en spe­cial treat­ment by the courts.

Take the case of 68-year-old Attorney at law Jennifer Messado, In one instance, she is accused of defraud­ing Jamaican enter­tain­er Mavado of $30.7 mil­lion while in the oth­er she is accused of swin­dling $28.6 mil­lion from St Andrew busi­ness­man Norman Horne and his sis­ter Charlotte.

Horne, who is exec­u­tive direc­tor of ARC Properties, and his sis­ter were alleged­ly defraud­ed of $28.6 mil­lion which was report­ed­ly paid over to Messado for a prop­er­ty locat­ed on Argyle Road in St Andrew, and owned by the Sports Development Foundation.
The court heard that Messado told the com­plainants that she was retained by the foun­da­tion to con­duct the sale. However, it was lat­er dis­cov­ered that the com­pa­ny had not retained Messado and that the prop­er­ty was not for sale.
Messado, who was out on a $800,000-bail, was rear­rest­ed on Tuesday after two sep­a­rate reports of fraud were lodged against her in rela­tion to fraud­u­lent land transactions.

Courts are gen­er­al­ly inclined to rearrange or rescind bail when offend­ers re-offend while on bail. Not so in Jamaica, this attor­ney was once again allowed out on bail even though the peo­ple argued that Messado is a flight risk. She was allowed out with the con­di­tion of report­ing dai­ly to the police and sur­ren­der­ing her trav­el documents.
That ought to take care of every­thing, after all, no crim­i­nal has ever fled Jamaica after their trav­el doc­u­ments have been confiscated.[sic]

Then there is the case of Andrew Brown who in 2016 mowed down a police inspec­tor, who was car­ry­ing out duties in the parish of Trelawny,
Inspector Gibbs who was in charge of the Clark’s Town Police and was a 30-year vet­er­an of the JCF was con­duct­ing traf­fic checks when he sig­naled Andrew Brown who was dri­ving a motor­car to stop.
Brown refused, gunned the engine instead and mowed down and killed the police offi­cer and kept going. After learn­ing that he was want­ed by the police, Brown turned him­self in the fol­low­ing day.
Brown even­tu­al­ly plead­ed guilty and the court imposed a sen­tence of .….. 16 months in prison!

This is the most shock­ing and egre­gious exam­ple of judi­cial mis­con­duct I have ever seen in all my life work­ing in law enforce­ment and now as an out­sider look­ing in.
This ver­dict is an unmit­i­gat­ed slap in the face of the JCF and the fam­i­lies of police offi­cers all across the coun­try. Despite the shock­ing dis­re­spect the ver­dict rep­re­sents it is even worse when it is con­sid­ered against the chill­ing mes­sage it sends to police that not only are their lives worth­less to crim­i­nals they have no val­ue in the courts either.

The elit­ist talk­ing heads can talk all they want but Jamaica is under­stood to be a haven for crim­i­nals and a mag­net for all who want to embark on a life of crime. Simply put many on the bench are pre­cious lit­tle more than crim­i­nals themselves.
So let’s stop with the pre­tense about fix­ing the police force, the bench the bar and all oth­er agen­cies of the dis­pen­sa­tion of jus­tice are just as filthy as the hier­ar­chy of the JCF, imag­ine that.

The sto­ries are far too many, far too com­plex to be doc­u­ment­ed, yet the alle­ga­tions of bul­ly­ing and abuse by the gazetted ranks of the (JCF) form an inte­gral part of the rea­sons that the Jamaica Constabulary Force(JCF) is hav­ing a dif­fi­cult time attract­ing qual­i­ty recruits and an even more dif­fi­cult time retain­ing those it has trained.

More impor­tant­ly is the stub­born and intran­si­gent can­cer of cor­rup­tion which the major­i­ty of Jamaicans are led to believe is cen­tered at the lev­el of the cop on the street who shakes down motorists over some traf­fic infraction.
Literally, every per­son who ever passed through the (JCF) has a dis­taste­ful sto­ry to tell about the bul­ly­ing, some­times ille­gal tac­tics of the gazetted ranks toward sub­or­di­nate mem­bers of the department.
This does not mean that all of the men and women who ever attained the rank of Assistant Superintendent to Commissioner of Police have all been cor­rupt bul­lies. However, for the most part, it does seem that to a cer­tain extent those cri­te­ria are require­ments for upward mobility.

The piv­otal space between the Rank and file and the gazetted ranks is the rank of Inspector. It is gen­er­al­ly under­stood that Inspectors expect that they are next in line to be pro­mot­ed to the gazetted Rank and so even though they are con­sid­ered rank-and-file they are a con­sid­ered a dis­as­ter to the men and women whom they supervise.
This writer has had my run-ins with sev­er­al mem­bers of the gazetted ranks, as a result, I decid­ed rather ear­ly that under no cir­cum­stances would I allow this cor­rupt incom­pe­tent sys­tem to decide my future.
Life is sim­ply too pre­cious and too short for that.

If I have writ­ten one arti­cle I must have writ­ten a dozen in which I talked about the cor­rup­tion of the hier­ar­chy of the police depart­ment, a sad indict­ment which is, unfor­tu­nate­ly, tar­nish­ing the men and women of the low­er ranks who risk their lives to pro­tect the country.
For the most part, it is the senior ranks of the police depart­ments who send their juniors to cov­er pri­vate jobs while theY col­lect large sums of mon­ey from pri­vate enti­ties and the con­sta­bles and cor­po­rals see not a red cent.

Senior police offi­cers embar­rass their junior col­leagues by rep­ri­mand­ing their col­leagues in front of their civil­ian friends, usu­al­ly for dar­ing to do their jobs the cor­rect way. Of course, junior mem­bers of the force are trans­ferred at the whim of com­man­ders who are doing the bid­ding of their civil­ian friends who run afoul of the law and are held to account by low­er ranked officers.
This writer was not immune from that kind of col­lu­sion between DCP Ebanks and mem­ber of Parliament Carl Samuda.
My crime was mak­ing damn sure that crim­i­nals did not oper­ate in my sphere of respon­si­bil­i­ty when I was sta­tioned at the Constant Spring Police Station. My Transfer was not my only dust-up with mem­bers of the gazetted big-foot brigade.
One SSP Cowan, a female Inspector whose name eludes me now, as well as Superintendent Brooks are just a few who tried to bul­ly me but found out rather quick­ly that- that was not such a good idea.
Nevertheless, my atti­tude when trans­ferred was that regard­less of where they sent me I would be doing police work. I nev­er emo­tion­al­ly teth­ered myself to any branch or sta­tion. Wherever they sent me I would be doing police work so they real­ly had pre­cious lit­tle pow­er over me for the ⁹¹⁄₂ years of my service.

The chal­lenges fac­ing the police in the streets are expo­nen­tial­ly and undu­ly increased by the stress placed on them by their seniors.
To a cer­tain extent, many from the rank of Assistant Superintendent upward would like to pre­tend that they are not police offi­cers. They are quick to hog the lime­light and the praise but are nowhere to be found when it comes to being accountable.

MAKING THE ROUNDS

Constabulary Station 


Montego Bay Police 


St. James 


May 31, 2018 

Sub-Officer i/c Traffic 

Re: Incident that occurred on Friday May 25, 2018 at the Montego Bay Police 
Station about 11:00am involving Senior Superintendent of Police W. Campbell 
commander in charge of St. James, Inspector A. Thompson Sub Officer in charge of 
Traffic St. James, #10680 W/Sgt K. Griffiths Sub Officer in charge of Training 
St. James, #16349 Constable C. Thompson, Erroy Gordon driver of the motor 
vehicle and a man I only know as the owner of the motor vehicle 

On Friday May 25, 2018 about 11:00 am, I was summoned to a meeting 
with the commander in charge of St. James. Present in the meeting at the time 
was Inspector A. Thompson and W/ Sgt K. Griffiths. I paid my compliment to the 
commander in charge and properly introduced myself to him. 

He started the meeting by informing me I wasn’t on trial so I 
needed not to worry. He then asked me to give an account of an incident that 
took place on the previous day to which I complied. He then asked me which act 
gave me the power to issue that ticket. I then explained to him that the driver 
had committed an offence under the road traffic act and I prosecuted the driver 
accordingly. 

He then asked me to read a document signed by the Senior 
Superintendent of Police in charge of traffic at the time dated June 10, 2004 
which speaks to seizure of vehicles being moved from the Wharves by the Police. 
See attachment of document labelled appendix 1. He then again asked me after I 
read the document what gave me the power to ticket the motorist. I then again 
explained to him section 10.1 of the Road Traffic Act which states “a motor 
vehicle shall not be used on the road unless there has been issued in respect of 
the vehicle, and prior to the licensing of the vehicle, by a Traffic Area 
Authority, a certificate (in this Act referred to as a certificate of fitness) 
that the prescribed conditions as to fitness are fulfilled in respect of the 
vehicles, and such certificate is in force in respect of the vehicle”. At this 
point, Inspector A. Thompson said to the commander in charge that technically I 
was right to prosecute the motorist. The commander then turned to Inspector A. 
Thompson and said I cannot be technically right, its either I am right or wrong 
and I am wrong to have issued a ticket to the motorist. 

I then observed the commander in charge going on his phone talking 
to someone. I heard him asking if they had reached and should come straight up 
to his office. About a minute after while still in the meeting, I heard a knock 
on the door and two males entered. One I could identify as the driver of the 
motor vehicle which I prosecuted and a man not known to me at the time but later 
identified himself as the owner of the motor vehicle. 

At the point, the commander in charge then invited both men to have 
a seat and the driver should give an account of what happened. The driver then 
began to give his account of what took place. Half way through his account of 
what happened the commander asked him to stop and said in the presence of 
everyone in the meeting that clearly I was wrong to issue such a ticket and if 
both men were to contest the ticket in court, the Jamaica Constabulary Force 
would be embarrassed. He further went on to apologize to both men on my behalf 
for my actions. He then turned to me and stated that I had damaged the 
relationship between the Jamaica Constabulary Force and Cars To Go Limited. 
Shortly after, I heard the commander in charge asked both men for the copy of 
the ticket I had issued to the driver to which I observed the driver handing the 
ticket to the commander in charge. The commander then turned to me and 
instructed me to hand over the copies I had in my ticket book to which I 
complied by handing them to him. However I am still in the possession of the 
police copy which will be attached to this report labelled appendix 2. I then 
observed the commander handing all four copies of the ticket to Inspector A. 
Thompson stating he should take care of them. Everything was done in the 
presence of everyone in the meeting. The commander in charge then thanked the 
men for attending the meeting and they left. 

The commander then turned to me and said that this was the same reason 
why the document labelled Appendix 1 was drafted because police always make up 
offences and try extort motorist and the only difference with me was that I 
didn’t ask the man for money he further states that he wasn’t even sure if I 
didn’t asked because he never remembered to ask the driver. I then said to him I 
have no intentions of extorting anyone and he should have asked to which he 
replied by saying that was good. 

The commander then turned to Inspector A. Thompson and myself and said 
I should be taken off frontline duties, I should start attend probationers 
lecture for a three months period every Tuesdays and Thursdays, I should be 
transferred to Cells for a three months period and a report shall be drafted up 
from both the sub officer in charge of training and cells after these periods 
has elapsed about my conduct. He then ended the meeting. 

His actions whilst in the meeting left me feeling embarrassed in the presence of 
my sub officer in charge, training officer and that of the civilians and I feel 
I am being punished for the lawful execution of my duties. 

Due to his actions I strongly recommend a transfer from this 
division because I’m not comfortable under the leadership of this commander 
since I have lost confidence in his ability to lead. 

Submitted for your information and appropriate actions. 

Constabulary Station 
 
                                                                                                                                                     
Montego Bay Police 
 
                                                                                                                                  
St. James 
 
                                                                                                                                         
May 31, 2018 
 
Sub-Officer i/c Traffic 
 
Re: Incident that occurred on Friday May 25, 2018 at the Montego Bay Police 
Station about 11:00am involving Senior Superintendent of Police W. Campbell 
commander in charge of St. James, Inspector A. Thompson Sub Officer in charge of 
Traffic St. James, #10680   W/Sgt K. Griffiths Sub Officer in charge of Training 
St. James, #16349 Constable C. Thompson, Erroy Gordon driver of the motor 
vehicle and a man I only know as the owner of the motor vehicle 
 
              On Friday May 25, 2018 about 11:00 am, I was summoned to a meeting 
with the commander in charge of St. James. Present in the meeting at the time 
was Inspector A. Thompson and W/ Sgt K. Griffiths. I paid my compliment to the 
commander in charge and properly introduced myself to him. 
 
               He started the meeting by informing me I wasn’t on trial so I 
needed not to worry. He then asked me to give an account of an incident that 
took place on the previous day to which I complied. He then asked me which act 
gave me the power to issue that ticket. I then explained to him that the driver 
had committed an offence under the road traffic act and I prosecuted the driver 
accordingly. 
 
            He then asked me to read a document signed by the Senior 
Superintendent of Police in charge of traffic at the time dated June 10, 2004 
which speaks to seizure of vehicles being moved from the Wharves by the Police. 
See attachment of document labelled appendix 1. He then again asked me after I 
read the document what gave me the power to ticket the motorist. I then again 
explained to him section 10.1 of the Road Traffic Act which states “a motor 
vehicle shall not be used on the road unless there has been issued in respect of 
the vehicle, and prior to the licensing of the vehicle, by a Traffic Area 
Authority, a certificate (in this Act referred to as a certificate of fitness) 
that the prescribed conditions as to fitness are fulfilled in respect of the 
vehicles, and such certificate is in force in respect of the vehicle”. At this 
point, Inspector A. Thompson said to the commander in charge that technically I 
was right to prosecute the motorist. The commander then turned to Inspector A. 
Thompson and said I cannot be technically right, its either I am right or wrong 
and I am wrong to have issued a ticket to the motorist. 
 
             I then observed the commander in charge going on his phone talking 
to someone. I heard him asking if they had reached and should come straight up 
to his office. About a minute after while still in the meeting, I heard a knock 
on the door and two males entered. One I could identify as the driver of the 
motor vehicle which I prosecuted and a man not known to me at the time but later 
identified himself as the owner of the motor vehicle. 
 
            At the point, the commander in charge then invited both men to have 
a seat and the driver should give an account of what happened. The driver then 
began to give his account of what took place. Half way through his account of 
what happened the commander asked him to stop and said in the presence of 
everyone in the meeting that clearly I was wrong to issue such a ticket and if 
both men were to contest the ticket in court, the Jamaica Constabulary Force 
would be embarrassed. He further went on to apologize to both men on my behalf 
for my actions. He then turned to me and stated that I had damaged the 
relationship between the Jamaica Constabulary Force and Cars To Go Limited. 
Shortly after, I heard the commander in charge asked both men for the copy of 
the ticket I had issued to the driver to which I observed the driver handing the 
ticket to the commander in charge. The commander then turned to me and 
instructed me to hand over the copies I had in my ticket book to which I 
complied by handing them to him. However I am still in the possession of the 
police copy which will be attached to this report labelled appendix 2. I then 
observed the commander handing all four copies of the ticket to Inspector A. 
Thompson stating he should take care of them. Everything was done in the 
presence of everyone in the meeting. The commander in charge then thanked the 
men for attending the meeting and they left. 
 
         The commander then turned to me and said that this was the same reason 
why the document labelled Appendix 1 was drafted because police always make up 
offences and try extort motorist and the only difference with me was that I 
didn’t ask the man for money he further states that he wasn’t even sure if I 
didn’t asked because he never remembered to ask the driver. I then said to him I 
have no intentions of extorting anyone and he should have asked to which he 
replied by saying that was good. 
 
         The commander then turned to Inspector A. Thompson and myself and said 
I should be taken off frontline duties, I should start attend probationers 
lecture for a three months period every Tuesdays and Thursdays, I should be 
transferred to Cells for a three months period and a report shall be drafted up 
from both the sub officer in charge of training and cells after these periods 
has elapsed about my conduct. He then ended the meeting. 
 
His actions whilst in the meeting left me feeling embarrassed in the presence of 
my sub officer in charge, training officer and that of the civilians and I feel 
I am being punished for the lawful execution of my duties. 
 
            Due to his actions I strongly recommend a transfer from this 
division because I’m not comfortable under the leadership of this commander 
since I have lost confidence in his ability to lead. 
 
Submitted for your information and appropriate actions.

.….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….…..

I do not have all the facts and as such I will with­hold judg­ment until this mat­ter is ful­ly inves­ti­gat­ed. We under­stand that the Police Federation is high­ly incensed about this inci­dent and cor­rect­ly so.
In the mean­time, the Commissioner of Police should get up off his back­side, (no more learn­ing on the job) and fig­ure out the facts of what occurred and if this is true as out­lined by this offi­cer that senior offi­cer should be made to find work at the car mart.

At the very least, regard­less of what comes out of what­ev­er inves­ti­ga­tions will be done in this mat­ter, the SSP has done an egre­gious wrong to his subordinate.
The ques­tion is not whether the tick­et is valid, that is a mat­ter for the courts to decide not for the SSP to decide.
Police offi­cers issue cita­tions all across the globe every day. Some are thrown out some are upheld,that’s how it works. It is for the admin­is­tra­tive author­i­ty to decide the valid­i­ty of the alle­ga­tions based on exist­ing law, not the police hierarchy.
(1)The SSP had no legal or admin­is­tra­tive author­i­ty to con­vene a meet­ing in his office with rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the com­pa­ny to which the tick­et was issued.
(2) The SSP had no right to sub­ject the con­sta­ble to be in that illic­it meeting.
(3) The SSP had no right to embar­rass his sub­or­di­nate in front of civil­ians against whom he had issued a ticket.
(4) The SSP had no author­i­ty to penal­ize the con­sta­ble even if the tick­et issued had no stand­ing in law. (A com­pe­tent leader would have apprised his sub­or­di­nate on the law in a respect­ful and nur­tur­ing manner)
(5) The SSP had no legal author­i­ty to pun­ish the con­sta­ble in this matter.
(6) The SSP is wrong,(even if the tick­et was unwar­rant­ed) clear­ly, he has vest­ed unscrupu­lous ties to the car-mart.
(7) The SSP had no legal author­i­ty to alter, dam­age, or destroy the tick­et or the tick­et book, to exon­er­ate his accom­plices. (see for­mer [SP] James Forbs).

This Article has been updated.