Sunday, 25th January 2009
The trial that shocked the country
I am against capital punishment, but whenever a brutal murder like that one committed by David Norbert Schembri happens I start doubting my conviction.
Last week the nation was shocked. The reports coming out of the jury of Mr Schembri traumatised, angered and horrified people. The savage cruelty shown by him must be alien even to the realm of beasts.
The brutal murder
This was the scenario.
Josette Scicluna, 32 years old, was at home with her seven year old daughter. She had prepared dinner for her little girl. They were talking. Probably they were smiling at each other. The peaceful loving moments between a mother and her child were broken by loud banging on the door. Shots then followed. The door broke down. David Schembri comes in gun in hand. He was Josette’s former partner and the girl’s “father”. It was not the first time that Josette suffered violence at the hands of her partner. During her pregnancy she was hospitalised twice because of his violent behaviour.
But what happened on that ill-fated night made all the previous violence pale into insignificance.
He started stabbing Josette in front of his and her own daughter. He did not stab her once or twice or trice. He stabbed her 49 times! He stabbed her all over her body. Schembri stabbed her in the genital area, chest and face in order to disfigure her. Blood was all over the place.
The couple’s daughter was in hysterics, screaming and jumping up and down. A neighbour took her away to another flat.
Mission accomplished, Schembri, according to a witness walked out soaked in blood, "arranged his hair" and calmly said with a blank look on his face, "you can call the police now".
Still against capital punishment
My position against capital punishment was not the result of study but of watching a film. Krzysztof Kieslowski’s “A Short film about killing” is a masterpiece. It’s a longer version of his other masterpiece Decalogue 5.
The Polish director narrates the story of Jacek, a young man of twenty years. We follow a number of incidents Jacek was involved in. He can only be described – at best – as skifuz. Kieslowski shows us the brutal murder of a taxi driver at the hands of Jacek. The director lingers on every single moment. It is a very long murder scene. It is a savage, cruel and relentlessly brutal. The victim’s pleas for mercy fall on deaf ears. We hate Jacek and are happy when he is condemned to death.
Then Kieslowski turns the tables on us. The seven minute murder scene is countered by a five minute hanging scene. The brutality of Jacek is matched by the brutality of the state. Kieslowski said that his film crew was shaking while the execution scene was being rehearsed, even though they knew it was only pretence.
It’s bad enough to have brutal citizens around but it’s much worse to have a brutal state! Capital punishment is bad and is proven not to be effective. The stance against it is based on the belief that everyone is redeemable. It is society’s mission to not just to punish but to help people redeem themselves and not to eliminate them.
Thank God for Mr Justice Galea Debono
The jury of Mr Schembri will not make me change my position against capital punishment.
Society, I just wrote, must punish the wicked. Therefore I thank Mr Justice Galea Debono who showed that justice could be done without being vindictive. The punishment he meted out is harsh but fair in the circumstances. Schembri seemed to be unrepentant till the very end. He turned towards the relatives of the victim and twice told them: I am still alive. I am still alive.
Mr Justice Galea Debono showed us once more that the honest find in him a defender while the criminal find in him a scourge. Our Courts are better courts because of people like Mr Justice Galea Debono.
In his sentence the Judge pointed out a particularly incredible incident in this sad and sordid drama. Mr Justice Galea Debono pointed out that Schembri had 12 previous convictions over cases including violence and abuse of hard drugs. His probation officer had, just a week before this crime, recommended Schembri’s imprisonment. Unfortunately the Court decided to ignore the recommendation of the probation officer and let Schembri go out a free man. .
“Had that court eliminated him from circulation,” said the judge, “maybe Josette Scicluna would be still enjoying her life with her daughter.”
The Judge’s reference and emphasis on this incident is not just a criticism of another court and a colleague but it is also a warning against lenient sentencing.
Another troubling thing
There is another very worrying thing about the trial. I refer to the 8 – 1 result. I asked different people why, in their opinion, such a thing is possible. Almost all told me the same thing. The jurors, many said, vote in such a way so that the convicted criminal will never be certain of those who found him guilty and, therefore, he or she will find it difficult to take revenge.
I am not saying that it is true that jurors behave in this way. In fact I cannot believe that this can be the case. But it seems that there is a very strong perception that this is what happens. Such a perception – communicated to me even by someone who served as a juror – should be investigated. If the perception tallies with reality then the jury system is of dubious value. If, as I believe, the perception does not tally with reality, then something should be done to change it.
Till next time I wish you all good bye and good luck.
RSS
Comments
What are you driving at exactly?
Juries decide a "guilty" or a "non-guilty" verdict as a matter of conscience after deliberating in private, under no pressure from any outsider. The most a judge can do, very very rarely indeed is to express disagreement while accepting their verdict - or to dissolve a jury and order a retrial for an adequate reason and before they withdraw to deliberate.
Where do human laws, divine law, the tribes of Israel come in?
How can you say that the Catholic Church has done away with the Old Testament when it includes it in the daily liturgy of every Mass and when Christ specifically declared that He did not come to abolish the Law? The New Testament is not the Old Testament but it has evolved from it.
For true justice to be administered, the jury has to go beyond the human law aspect. If the jury is only good for a guilty or not guilty verdict, then justice is half-baked. The jury when deemed necessary has to determine if the human law itself is good in itself. If not, then justice is not carried out properly. Human law then kicks in, rather than God's laws.
It was never the intention of Christ to go back on his word, in the New Testament, saying that he can not to undo God's prophets. This is the biggest lie and blunder.
The Catholic Church does away with the Old Testament, and hence cannot correctly say, that with all due respect, applies Gods' law, when it does not believe (by-liveth) it.
The Old Testament is not that of the Jews, but rather the laws for all true Isrealites, who are the Champions of God. The tribe of Judah is only one of 12 tribes. Therefore one cannot say that the Old Testament is just for the Jews. So now what, disobey the Commadments too!?
Fr Borg, after introducing his blog with "I start doubting my conviction" about abolishing the death penalty, goes on to state emphatically that he is "still against capital punishment" - therefore your criticism is unjust.
We Christians are enjoined to forgive as many times as we are asked to forgive on the assumption that the request is a genuine act of repentance and a determination not to offend again. When a murderer taunts the victim's relatives with "I am still alive" it is safe to conclude that he is unrepentant and, given the opportunity, he would commit murder again. Society is entitled to protect itself and the Christian virtue of forgiving must not be misinterpreted as a licence to continue to commit serious crime!
He was mistaken where he wrote that the jury in Australia, determines the sentence of the offenders.
As a Maltese born citizen of Australia, Called four times for Jury duties, I have never been asked to determine the sentence of an offender it is always along with other jurors to determine guilty or not guilty.
It was Mahatma Gandhi who said "An eye for an eye and soon the whole world will turn blind", and later Martin Luther King.
Apparently, many Catholics in Malta choose to forget about forgiveness, tolerance and fortitude.
It is very obvious that you, are outraged by this crime and so am I like most people want justice or perhaps revenge,
You say you are against capital punishment but now you are doubting your conviction
You are a member of the clergy your comments are not in line with the teaching of Christ where he preached forgivness and to turn the other check, sure you are entitled to your opinion but for the sake of writing your column you are exhibiting double standards.
You may wish to know that in the oath taken by jurors the registrar asks: 'You do swear and promise before God and man that you will examine with the most scrupulous attention the charges which shall be brought against A.B.; that you will not betray either the interests of the accused or those of the Republic of Malta in whose name he stands accused; that you will not hold communication, without leave of the Court, with any person until your verdict shall be given;that you will not give way either to hatred or malice, or to fear or affection; that you will decide, upon the charges and the defence, according to your conscience and intimate conviction, with the impartiality and firmness that become honest and free men. So help you God.
As rightly said by Dr. Saliba, in Malta the jurors do not determine the extend of the sentence. They may, however, recommend leniency.
In some states in America and in Australia it is the jury which determines the sentence.
I perfectly know what do you mean when saying when you wrote take into consideration the safety of your family especially in a small country like ours where everybody knows everybody else, but put yourself in the position of the victim, prosecution, police investigators, Mr Justice Galea Debono ecc ecc. The Jury are an active part of the Criminal Justice System when a jury takes place and if they do not act as such according to their conscience, they are betraying the system and indirectly they could have given a very useful tool to the defence lawyer. Therefore if (un trained) persons serving as jury are being find unfit for the job or being afraid to act accordingly even during a case of extreme cruelty like this one, it is better that we change the system as it was once proposed by Dr E. Fenech Adami and abolish the trial by Jury within our Criminal Justice System.
So a unanimous guilty verdict was last pronounced in 1977.
Fr. Joe I wouldn’t think it is popular gossip without any grain of truth in it. After all it is only human to take into consideration the safety of your family especially in a small country like ours where everybody knows everybody else.
Let’s keep in mind that the period following 1977 wasn’t exactly the most peaceful era. What with the murder of Karen Grech which incidentally happened on December1977 and the murder of Raymond Caruana some nine years later, not to mention the odd bomb going off here and there or the spattering with paint of facades of private properties etc. etc.?
It would make perfect sense to me if this practice had been adopted during those agitated times. Whether it should still apply nowadays is another question.
Yes I have heard of this gossip
Your concept of the functions of judge and jury is incorrect.
The judge explains to the jury the legal aspects of a case and he should direct the jury's attention to admissible and non-admissible arguments submitted. When deliberating, the jury is closeted and no one not even the judge interferes with their deliberations although the jury often asks the judge to clarify some points.
The jury returns a "guilty" or a "not guilty" verdict but it does not "determine the extent of the sentence" which is determined by the judge in the absence of the jury.
The last unanimous guilty verdict in a trail by jury of wilful homicide was in 1977
An eye for an eye is not a good method of dealing with people who do harm to society. If everyone takes this approach the world will end up with a lot of blind people.
The fullest meaning of a jury, with full freedom, is by a "Grand Jury", as was a century ago, perhaps in the UK, but now defunct, unfortunately.
It is the grand jury that determines the extent of the sentence, and not the judge or human law, and in this we have gone backwards, into what God should inspire jurors into taking these serious decisions.
Let’s leave distant history, and come closer to our times and to our own country where we have seen a heinous crime that puts to shame even the crime that has aroused so much discussion in this blog.
Everyone recalls Gigia - nothing need be said further.
But her power was exerted over a “child’, a victim physically weaker than her.
And what’s more brutal than a mother killing her own child?
You can view the works by Caravaggio and Artemisia Gentileschi, which depict the theme “Judith and Holofernes” on: www.artchive.com
I really do not have an answer to that question. Yes, some unspeakable crimes are perpetrated by men on women but I loath to put all men in one basket for there are scores of men who are decent and who genuinely love women. Most of all, from the comments listed under this story, we can see that many men were sickened and outraged at such a shocking crime and at the killer's insouciance after the act and also after the verdict. So no, I'd rather not go gung-ho over men in general.
However, I would like to ask a question to all men reading this: Why do men like violent movies?
Part 2
A 17th century woman artist Artemisia Gentileschi was raped, and her hatred against men came out in a number of paintings depicting the theme of “Judith and Holofernes”. If you look up her works and compare them with the painting by Caravaggio which depicts the same theme, you will realize that her description of the execution is much more powerful and gory than Caravaggio’s work.
Keeping in mind that Caravaggio was regarded as a violent person, always ready for a fight and in constant trouble with the police, yet this particular work is considered mild in relation to Artemisia’s work. All her hatred is poured out into the action of severing Holofernes’ head.
Do you think that if she had the physical strength she would not have actually committed all that she had poured out into her painting?
Jessica
Part 1
A psychologist would be in a better position to answer your question but from the point of view of a layman I would say that men are no more brutal than women except that men are more physically endowed to be aggressors. What woman lack in brute strength is substituted by their craftiness. We have seen women in history who have resorted to the administration of a potion with the intent of killing - and very often succeeding.
Just to mention a couple of examples –
- Judith and Holofernes -
Judith used other wiles to do away with Holofernes - her beauty. She got him drunk because she could never have been any match for him as regards physical strength. When he passed out, she severed his head thus saving her people.
Thankyou. Even though i've seen the Dekalog, i barely remember details. The only thing i remember is the feeling after each film - surprised, troubled and thoughtful.
I learnt that life is never straightforward, and what seems to be wrong in the eyes of someone/everyone might be understandable if seen from a different point of view, but i say this with fear because I don't want to sound as if i'm excusing the killer. Far from it.
My first reaction to this murder trial was "Men are brutes and women are their victims". I said this in a blog and immediately received an avalanche of scorn and spite (from men). I still think in this way but the old question remains - why are men so brutal to each other, especially to women?
I just realised that you have seen the Dekalog the series I have just mentioned. A Short Film About Killing is the extended version of Dekalog 5.
If you like his films you should also look into his Three Colours: Red , White and Blue. Magnificent cinema.
When he died, Kieslowski was working on another trilogy on heaven, hell, and purgatory. It pains me to think what we have missed.
Any good online shop will have it.
Well, sitting through the film is the emotional equivalent of going through the grinder. So I would advise you to show it to young people 18+ and prepare them for the stark depiction of the killing for it will definitely haunt them for some time after.
It is an excellent commentary on killing and state-endorsed killing, Capital Punishment for as Kieslowski said: "It's wrong no matter why you kill, no matter whom you kill and no matter who does the killing... Inflicting death is probably the highest form of violence imaginable; capital punishment is an infliction of death."
It is grim but it is imbued with insight and intelligence. I suggest you take a good look at his Dekalog which is loosely based on the Ten Commandments. The way you look at life after will not be the same,
If the victim in this case god forbid had been my daughter . I thunk yes I would use the switch or pull the trigger. An eye for an aye .
This film you mentioned,Krzysztof Kieslowski’s “A Short film about killing” , how does one get hold of it? is it suitable as an educational film for youths?
I once saw a modern interpretation of the commandments in a series of ten films - all Polish. They were all very impressive indeed.
As for David Schembri, I feel troubled when i think about what he did. This terrible cruelty that human beings have in them, where is it coming from? can they be made to change their hate and walk in Jesus's steps? I really wonder why humans can be so vicious.
Thanks for the clarification (about the remuneration). Of course, Lm2 per day would still mean a substantial loss of earnings to a self-employed person.
If yes how does that reflect on the sentence?
almost but not quite... you get Lm2 per day or something like that from the third day on :)
@ Fr Borg: I served as a juror once in a similar case and it also turned out 8-1, as a result of genuine deliberation. Nobody mentionined manipulating the result for the reasons mentioned here. This was my own experience and I am not making a general statement.
What's more worrying is that in Malta the jury is forced to serve (without even renumeration). Very undemocratic and dictatorial, and could lead to some members of the jury thinking "let's get this over with...I'm wasting my time here".
Actually I heard about it linked to this trial in the context that the 'one' is meant to throw the convicted/his relatives off track in case they seek revenge. As far as I know, the way jurors vote may have a bearing on the sentencing, even if in this case it did not. Also, I must say I was pretty amazed that who was saying this to me was quite conviced that it is practice. If this is so then I do not hold much hope in our moral fibre. It is, for me, to say the least immoral.
By inference and logic no thanks for the Hon Lenient judge who ignored the probation officer's earlier recommendations.
When faced with moral dilemmas such as this, I always turn to the words of Sister Helen Prejean, CJS, the author of Dead Man Walking:
Is God vengeful, demanding a death for a death, or is Gos compassionate, luring souls into love so great that no one can be considered 'enemy'?
Food for thought!
The law can mete out any sentence it deems fit, and it’s a good thing that I am not the law.
I am a mother of a grown up daughter, and a grand mother of a six year old girl. With them in mind, I wrote that comment.
Do you think the family of the brutally murdered young woman and the severely traumatized child would share your magnanimity?
I know that everyone is clever in retrospect, but whoever let this man walk the streets must live with that decision for the rest of his life.
Also a welcome change from the not unsimilar Diane Gerarda case.
"For the monstrous crime he had committed and for showing not a grain of remorse,
the least he should have got was solitary confinement for the rest of his life (and not the three 10 day periods), with hard work to earn his keep, and a mirror for company - as close to a living death as he can get. "
If I was the convicted I think I would rather be killed then endure your monstrous recommendation! Your words speak of vengence but the law should be above that!
and what about the second part of my question...Would you pull the trigger? In full confidence that you are doing your God's work?
I can easily answer your question. The true meaning of one of the Ten Commandaments is not: Thou shalt not kill, but Thou shalt not "kill illegally" (according to God's laws).
Thus to kill illegally is the correct Hebrew translation of the Old Testament.
Thus, the executioner would not have blood on his hands, BUT requested by God himself, to put PERVERSITY out of society. We are the perverse ones, for not abiding to God's will, and these are the statutes and judgments of God according to the Torah.
"Since he had blood on his hands he should be executed " is what you say. What about the executioners? Should they also be killed because they will also have blood on their hands?
Also to all those who are in favour of capital punishment, would you throw the switch or pull the trigger yourselves? Think about it
The court ruled life imprisonment and: “He was also sentenced to three 10-day periods of solitary confinement, which will be spaced at the discretion of the prison director” (Friday 23rd January).
For the monstrous crime he had committed and for showing not a grain of remorse,
the least he should have got was solitary confinement for the rest of his life (and not the three 10 day periods), with hard work to earn his keep, and a mirror for company - as close to a living death as he can get.
I shudder to think about it.
17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
17:7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.
17:8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in Judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, [being] matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the "I AM" thy God shall choose;
In this case Mr. Schembri admitted, and therefore the solution is clear. He would not of course admit it should he know that God's laws still exist.
I was shocked when I heard of a story when a Russian man killed a man in Germany, and when he was sent in jail, he said that had he known that the prisons are so good there, he would have killed someone before!
Is this the system of justice we want!?
Also the current judgment by David Norbert Schembri, is perverse because society now pays for his food until he dies. Under God's laws, since he has blood on his hands, he should be executed.
Read the system of mind control by the scribes (now judges and lawyers) of today:
http://jahtruth.net/syst.htm
A handbook for prison wardens and prisoners here: http://jahtruth.net/prison.htm
You would be surprised at what can be discovered in the Old Testament, great judgments, and if we humans are in disagreement with it, WE ARE THE PROBLEM and NOT God's word.
Continued ...
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Sacred_Scripture/Sacred_Scripture_014.htm
"There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world." "Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty."
"Most of the Church's teaching, especially in the moral order, is infallible doctrine because it belongs to what we call her ordinary universal magisterium."
"Equally important is the Pope's (Pius XII) insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity." " . . . the Church's teaching on 'the coercive power of legitimate human authority' is based on 'the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.' It is wrong, therefore 'to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.' On the contrary, they have 'a general and abiding validity.' (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2)."
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090119/local/witnesses-describe-2004-murder
I made it a point to look her up because she deserves to be hailed by name
.
God bless you, Fleur Cilia.
As in all Kieslowski's films there is a strong element of redemption in this senseless tragedy.
This horrible case presented two kinds of humanity: humanity at its darkest personified by the murderer and humanity at its best: embodied by the neighbour who rushed in,amid the mayhem of the frenzied attack, to rescue the little girl. This woman (whose name sadly escapes me) put herself in harm's way to grab the child and give her shelter in her own home.Remember, the killer could have gone after her too.
This is the stuff of heroic acts. We lament these times of rampant individualism when most people turn the other way, but this woman overcame her fear (I am sure she must have been scared out of her wits) and did a totally selfless act.
In my own way, I would like to salute you, brave neighbour and to thank you for your fine example.