The quality of mercy is not strained. Yet it is not always easily understood or accepted to be in the right proportions. It is also different from, and not as absolute as, forgiveness.

The crime profile has altered, to the detriment of society

If it blesses him that gives and him that takes, if the giver is acting not on his own behalf but on the behalf of the rest of society, its measure is important and almost always subject to controversy.

That is what Minister Manuel Mallia and the whole Labour Government are finding out.

The minister announced a 100-day amnesty to all prisoners, with notable exceptions like those imprisoned for paedophilia, to celebrate Labour’s victory at the general election of March 9.

The recipients and their relatives were, naturally, euphoric. No so much of public opinion.

The measure was greeted with howls of protest including from official Nationalist quarters. It was as if the minister had rolled the boulder to a cave of never-seen horrors.

The truth is rather different. Amnesties are an established part of our system. Some given by the Nationalists, as details published by The Sunday Times of Malta yesterday reminded, were far more generous than that given by Labour this time.

When the Nationalist Party was elected in May 1987, for instance, prisoners were given two months for each year they had left to serve.

Two years later, when Ċensu Tabone was appointed President, a reduction of two to seven months was granted, presumably because Dr Tabone was the first President appointed from the Nationalist side, a flimsy partisan excuse if ever there was one.

The story continues. Still another amnesty of two to seven months was given by the Nationalists a while later on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of Independence in September 1989. Adding up that was a series of amnesties that can probably never be repeated.

So why was Labour’s amnesty this time greeted with such howls of protest and derision?

For one thing, coming from the Nationalist Party, it fits in with their simplistic plan of action – carp about and attack anything that Labour does.

That is what Nationalists do anyhow, no matter what impression of positive thinking they tried to give.

For another, there seems to be an unspoken but concerted campaign in the independent media to find fault with everything Labour does.

God knows in its first three months the Labour government has committed a number of unavoidable mistakes, which have given easy ammunition to its detractors.

But the ‘anti’ trend is too strong and unfair, ignoring as it does the good things being implemented, and success stories like Owen Bonnici at Justice, just to mention one.

Nevertheless there is no gainsaying that more thought should have been given to the 100-day amnesty.

For one thing, society has changed since the last amnesty was given in 1999 to mark the arrival of the new millennium.

The crime profile has altered, to the detriment of society. There are more murders, more drugs-related cases, more crimes that threaten the well-being of society through their impact and their demonstration effect.

One has to wonder whether there is room for further amnesties.

Also, the method of announcing the amnesty – Dr Mallia addressing cheering prisoners in a courtyard – was not the most dignified approach, making it appear too much like a populist measure.

Dr Mallia has been given a mega ministry which he is handling with verve. At times exuberance and enthusiasm still have to be controlled.

The quality of mercy should not be strained.

But society has to protect itself without developing harshness.