Applying the law and doing justice

Many letters have been written criticising a recent judgment by a magistrate in the case of two teenagers who brutally tortured a dog. I understand and share their feelings of anger at the barbaric act but I fail to understand the sarcasm and, at times, spiteful remarks passed at the magistrate.

Members of the judiciary are prohibited from replying to such letters, and because of this the public may therefore remain without an explanation. In some court cases, the media report only the charge and the sentence given. The sentence reflects all that is said in the case, not just that which is reported in the media. Because of this, readers may draw the wrong conclusion.

A prison term is not always the correct punishment for the guilty party. Sending someone to prison with the attendant risk of exposing the person to a situation in which he could forge an even worse character does nobody any good, least of all society. But this point is not always fully understood.

It would have been more correct on the correspondents to first find time to go to the court registry and obtain a copy of the judgment they commented about. They might have appreciated the fact that in this case a prison sentence was not indicated.

The court found the two guilty as sin but, given their distressing background and circumstances, a prison term would have been a wrong decision. As I happen to know the magistrate in question, I know that he loves animals.

I feel it was therefore manifestly wrong on the part of some of the correspondents to attribute callousness and insensitivity in the sentence.

I have seen this magistrate bury his beloved dog in our garden with tears streaming down his face; he sleeps with one of his cats nestled lovingly in the crook of his arm. I know. I am married to him.

Like all of us, he is human, and the human side of him would have had him tie the two teenagers up and give them a taste of their own blow torch. That is what I, and most of us, would have liked to do.

But as a responsible member of the judiciary, he refrained from venting his feelings at the cost of justice. He is a person who makes a distinction between applying the law and doing justice - two concepts which at times are oceans apart. He delivered a sentence, which did not appease our anger, but appeasing anger is not his job. Doing justice is.

Again, I share the corrrespondents' anger but rather than attacking the magistrate these should instead call on the politicians to come up with a decent law in favour of animal rights.

Animals are part of our own lives, yet they are constantly being ignored. Why? Is it perhaps because they have no vote?

Also, let us have some faith in the members of the judiciary who are faced with the awesome job of sitting in judgment.

We have a right to express our opinion, and criticism comes easy to most of us, but let us direct our criticism where it is due without any spite and sarcasm.