Politicking over substance

“WITH THOSE few words, Mr Speaker, I beg to move,” said Attorney General John Jeremie as he ended his piloting of the Home Invasion (Self-Defence and Defence of Property) Bill in the House of Representatives on November 26. Rarely have those words been more fitting.

Mr Jeremie spoke for just half an hour in relation to the most far-reaching criminal justice reform thus far under the UNC administration. His brevity was emblematic of the underwhelming nature of the debate, in which MPs seemed more focused on politicking rather than substance. “Few words” indeed.

The government didn’t need the opposition to pass the bill. Perhaps this explains why it did not avail itself of the opportunity to build the strongest case possible for the stand-your-ground standard and for the establishment of home invasion as a criminal offence. The law was approved after being debated at just one sitting; it was rushed through shortly before midnight. In the end, the bill passed 23 for, ten against, with the two Tobago MPs voting for it.

Clear as that margin was, the same cannot be said of the legislation, whose success will depend on the degree to which it is understood by the general population, not lawyers. The duty of the government was not just to convince PNM MPs or to anticipate the objections of independents in the Senate. Rarely has legislation been more a matter of life and death. But instead of coming armed with arguments, Mr Jeremie came armed with only a tangentially relevant bombshell about gun ownership among PNM MPs.

This was the moment for the AG to go beyond the commissioned reports, studies and precedents bandied around at “consultation” exercises over the last few months. This was the moment to address directly those who fear abuse. This was the moment to explain how the law might be practically enforced. The new measures could be justifiable if they allow proportionality. A court can look under the provisions into “the presence or absence of reasonable grounds.”

However, the law appears to go further than existing self-defence in permitting deadly force when someone “honestly believes that using or threatening to use such force is reasonably necessary.” Such “honest belief” contradicts the notion of a reasonable actor. And dead men cannot speak: if the homeowner kills, there is no one to contradict his account. A parallel can be drawn with the way police killings, done under the guise of a “use-of-force” policy, notoriously go unchallenged in this country.

We hope better is done in the Senate. Yes, an election promise is a promise. But ultimately, citizens will pay if a defective law is passed, not MPs or senators, who will all continue to draw their salaries.