Dear Editor
In the wake of the latest tragic shooting, Prime Minister Gaston Browne’s forthright condemnation of the Judiciary’s handling of gun-related crimes is not only justified but necessary.
His remarks spotlight an uncomfortable truth: our judicial system, by granting bail and issuing lenient sentences to known offenders, is failing to protect the citizens of Antigua and Barbuda from the scourge of gun violence.
It is time to recognize that soft-handed judicial practices have tangible, deadly consequences, and that the protection of law-abiding citizens must take precedence over the misplaced leniency extended to criminals.
The Prime Minister’s statement rightly points out the perils of a system where known offenders, especially those involved in gun crimes, are allowed to re-enter society with minimal consequences.
The alarming reality is that repeat offenders are destabilizing our communities, perpetuating cycles of violence that threaten the safety and security of all.
The idea that these individuals can receive bail and light sentences after committing serious crimes sends a dangerous message: that crime can, indeed, pay. This is a message that must be unequivocally rejected.
Critics, such as Justin L. Simon, K.C., have attempted to deflect attention from the Judiciary’s role by shifting the blame solely onto the government’s border security efforts.
While securing our borders is undeniably crucial, it is misleading and irresponsible to suggest that the Judiciary bears no responsibility for the current state of affairs.
The argument that judicial independence precludes accountability is a dangerous one. Independence does not absolve the Judiciary from criticism, especially when its decisions directly impact public safety.
When the courts fail to deliver justice by allowing dangerous individuals to walk free, they fail the very people they are meant to protect.
Furthermore, Simon’s argument that the root of gun violence lies solely in border security is overly simplistic.
Yes, illegal firearms entering the country is a significant problem, but it does not absolve the Judiciary from its duty to impose strong and deterrent sentences on those who are caught and prosecuted.
The Judiciary’s role is to apply the law in a manner that upholds justice, which includes protecting society from those who repeatedly engage in violent crime.
To suggest otherwise is to misunderstand the broader responsibilities of our legal system.
The defense of the Judiciary based on the notion that it is unfair to criticize an institution that “cannot defend itself” is particularly weak.
Public institutions, including the Judiciary, must be open to scrutiny and accountable to the public. The decisions made by judges have real-world consequences, and when those decisions undermine public safety, it is entirely appropriate for those in leadership positions, such as the Prime Minister, to speak out.
Moreover, the concerns raised about the lack of juvenile detention facilities, while valid, do not justify leniency towards young offenders involved in gun crimes.
The safety of the broader community cannot be compromised because of systemic deficiencies.
If juveniles are involved in violent crimes, the solution is not to simply release them back into society on bail but to address the deficiencies in the system, such as creating proper juvenile detention facilities.
This is where the government and Judiciary should work together to ensure that justice is served without compromising the safety of our citizens.
Prime Minister Browne’s call for stricter sentencing and an end to routine bail for repeat offenders is not an attack on judicial independence—it is a call for the Judiciary to fulfill its role in protecting society.
The principle that crime must not pay is fundamental to any justice system that seeks to maintain order and safety.
By advocating for harsher penalties for those who repeatedly engage in gun crimes, the Prime Minister is prioritizing the well-being of the people over the rights of those who have chosen to endanger others.
It is time to acknowledge that the Judiciary has a critical role to play in the fight against crime, and that role must include imposing sentences that reflect the severity of the offense and the threat posed by the offender.
Protecting society requires more than just secure borders; it requires a legal system that is unafraid to deliver justice in its truest sense—swift, certain, and proportionate to the crime.
In conclusion, while securing our borders is a vital component of reducing gun violence, it is the Judiciary’s duty to ensure that those who commit violent crimes face appropriate consequences.
The safety and security of the citizens of Antigua and Barbuda must be the ultimate priority, and the Judiciary must act accordingly. The time for leniency has passed; it is time for justice to be served.
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
Please know that our politics is is the little piece of pork in the government dumpling.
When a politician who has served in the Cabinet becomes Chief Justice the sanctity of the Judiciary is clearly desecrated, and its sensitivity impeached.
The Cabinet, legislature, judiciary, law enforcement, immigration, customs are all #GUILTY, of allowing the Nation to become what it is today; as in, rich gated, guarded and protected communities to poor and destitute Shanty Towns.
This cultural mix has being a part of the Nation for centuries. Some communities especially the Shanty Towns and new [ghettos] which have emerged in recent times are bursting at the seams from the rise in criminality.
Jumbee Picknee aka Ras Smood
De’ole Dutty Peg 👣Garrat_Bastard
Vere C. Edwards
@ I don’t know my name.
Is your first language gibberish?
You are so corrupted: like the red ants you and Anthony ‘treacherous’ Smith serve.
Who wrote this? I want to ask this person one thing? Have you taken one criminal justice class?
Do they comprehend how the court works? Do they comprehend that the court can only work within the laws and even the executive orders of the Prime Minister (PM) and cabinet.
I must inform you, and you will not like to hear this, but the government (PM, AG, and ministers) have better tools and much more discretion than a court/judge to decrease crimes/to impact crime.
The court only decide matters before it. The court is limited to the evidence presented to it, and the court must err on the side of liberty and human rights. The court is a referee, and in many cases, it is a jury that decides guilt or not.
It is highly ignorant to think this kind of blaming is justified of a judge/court (may have 1% to 5% responsibility towards crime). The police have 100% responsibility towards crimes and the government (PM, AG, and other minister’s 100% responsibility towards crimes).
The judge is more limited, substantially more limited than any other part of the criminal justice system. So, it shows incompetence and significant incompetence in doing this to the court/judges and not also with the police, AG, PM, Cabinet, and the legislative branch of government. They are more powerful than the court in crime prevention and corrections.
The court is limited to what the legislative branch says it can do and can not do. If that is not in violation of the constitutional and human rights of people.
I am sorry writer, my BA, MA (in criminology and criminal justice), and JD (law degree) can not allow me to accept this illogical and inaccurate conclusion.
It is the police and legislative branch that must get this kind of scrutiny or, at minimum, all parts of the criminal justice system. Not just the court, and definitely, they are not the main part of crime prevention, detection, and crime opportunity reduction.
*I am not in agreement that citizens of the jury are more to blame than those politicians and police with power and authority to directly impact vicious crimes*
https://antiguanewsroom.com/letter-the-kings-counsel-is-dead-wrong/
Loser Lawyer make sure you take it all the way to the Privy Council, so you can hear similar to what they told you in the infamous Barbuda land case:
“the claimants have NO REALISTIC PROSPECT OF SUCCEEDING in their claim under section 9(1) of the Constitution so that the Court of Appeal was correct to strike out that claim. The Board will therefore humbly advise Her Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed.”
@ Gisele PUPPET string tight tight
She string tight tight LAKA U MOOMA likkle CALF.
Gisele and Justin cause G Brown and Michael Browne to spend millions of dollars $1,000,000.00’s of tax payers money to lose a case of unfair dismissal against her at the PRIVY COUNCIL and that’s why Gaston and the minions hate her so much, but u cannot keep a strong woman down. EAT your MOOMA heart out!!
It is better for Labour Party that the MAN COW LIPSTICK HAG tap right day fu chu…….more people will leave the party with the TOXIC, DICTATORIAL, HBIC of a BULLY!!!
She must a kip secret fu dem why dem fraid fu tell she that SHE IS THE PROBLEM!!!!! a she wear the pants….with MORE BALLS & BACKBONE than richard and he yardie wife, she calls the shots. A she run things! Things nah run she!!!! Seems like high school all over again – she DICTATE their every step and tell them who and who not to talk to, what and what not to do. A real ruthless panty-wearing DICTATRESS.
INTELLECTUALLY IDIOTIC: …INTELLECTUALL DUMB: …INTELLECTUALLY STUPID
Always strive to keep away from news stories that appear that the author is:
(a) ‘…An Intellectual Novice:
(b) …Intellectually Dumb:
(b) …Intellectually Idiotic: and
(c) …Intellectually Stupid.’
NOTE WELL:
This news story satisfies every one of these.
Do not be ‘…FEISTY or HASTY, PM.’
Evens as the constitutionality of ‘…FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION,’ is guaranteed, please watch your darn ‘…MOUTH.’
DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE
FOLLOW NO ‘…INTELLECTUAL IDIOT’ in seeking to ‘…DEFEND THE INDEFENSIBLE.’
STUDENTS AND CITIZENS- ON CIVIC
From the perspective of ‘…CIVIC,’ it lies not just with:
(i) ‘…Duties: and
(ii) …Responsibilities,’ but also with that obtained in the ‘Three ‘…BRANCHES OF
GOVERNMENT.’
These ‘…Students’ know as:
(i) ‘…The Law-making body called the ‘…LEGISLATURE:
(ii) …The Decision-making body called the …EXECUTIVE: and the
(iii) …The Adjudicating body called the …JUDICIARY.’
THE GOVERNMENT- VITAL BRANCHES
While there may be ‘…an Unwritten Principle’ called: ‘…SEPARATION OF POWERS,’ these three ‘…VITAL BRANCHES,’ though functionally different, combined, constitute the ‘…GOVERNMENT.’
EXPRESSING DISPLEASURE
While a ‘…PRIME MINISTER’ may not attack the: (a) ‘…LEGISLATURE and EXECUTIVE’ of which he is both a ‘…LEGISLATOR’ and ‘…CABINET’ Member, nothing prevents him/her from ‘…EXPRESSING DISPLEASURE’ when it appeared that something had ‘…GONE RADICALLY WRONG.’
ATTACKING OWN GOVERNMENT
In fact, though only a ‘…BRANCH,’ a ‘…Prime Minister’ would still be considered ‘…RECKLESS’ not to know, that he would be viewed by the citizens as ‘…ATTACKING HIS OWN GOVERNMENT,’ and by extension, the ‘…APPOINTING BODY,’ called the ‘…JUDICIAL AND LEGAL SERVICE COMMISSION (JLSC),’ as well as the ‘…CHIEF JUSTICE (CJ).’
FUNDAMENTAL- KNOWLEDGE
INTELLECTUAL DUNCE: PUBLIC DISGUST
Pertinent to the social media news story, this as every ‘…INTELLECTUAL DUNCE’ shall know, is ‘…REALLY NOT’ the ‘…FORUM,’ or best way in:
(a) ‘…Showing CONTEMPT: or
(b) …Expressing ‘…PUBLIC DISGUST.’
TALK GOOD. WALK GOOD.
@Pompey, you are tremendously correct. Not just correct but sadly, tremendously correct.
INTELECTUAL CRONIES: …INTELLECTUAL POSITION SINGERS…?
My social media friend, ‘…MY WAY OF HELPING,’ you could not have adopted a better name for this medium.
Always lending understanding to those that with the capacity to learn.
INTELLECTUAL CRONIES
Though they are ‘…DUMB,’ the ‘…Intellectual Cronies,’ must ‘…SING.’
Thus, they ‘…SHALL’ do so, in order to retain their ‘…CRONYISTIC POSITIONS.’
The contributions you have made: ‘…Enlighteningly: …Informatively: …Educationally,’
are greatly cherished by most followers.
Blessed ‘TRUTH.’ …BLESSED Thursday.
Comments are closed.