As readers of this blog could notice, this past week I did not take an active part in the debate that followed my piece on the media and the legal system. I will not bore you with the reasons why except to note that I did not find those reasons boring at all!
Whilst going through the comments of the various bloggers I could not but note that the level of the debate was very high. This contrasts with the present state of public discourse among us which leaves a lot to be desired. The new media are providing us with new opportunities of self-expression. But the fact that we have so many quick, almost instant, avenues to express ourselves in public does not necessarily mean that we are communicating more. Many times there are parallel and uninformed monologues more than fruitful exchanges of fact-based opinions.
Let me take as an example the debate following the release from prison of Noel Arrigo, the disgraced former Chief Justice. What Arrigo did was a monstrosity that negatively marked our legal system. Many people always had the perception that there was corruption in the Courts of Law. The Arrigo/Vella case proved that there was corruption; at least in this one case. This shocked many people and shook to its foundation the trust that many had in our Courts. What Arrigo did was awful and despicable. What he did will accompany him and his family for the rest of their life.
But does this mean that he cannot be redeemed or that he cannot be rehabilitated into society? A "no" answer would be a very sad answer indeed.
Was the release from prison – albeit in the section of the Mount Carmel Hospital that doubles as a prison – a newsworthy event?
Quite naturally the answer will depend on one's definition of newsworthiness. I think that his release was of interest to the public but, in itself, was not in the public interest. In itself the event was an item of curiosity. I used twice the phrase "in itself" purposely. I can see the legitimacy as a news item only if an editor decides to use the release as a peg for three issues or arguments which go beyond Arrigo and his release from prison.
The following are the three issues:
i. Should there be automatic remission of sentence because of good behaviour?
ii. What are the reasons why a prisoner is sent to Mt Carmel and are the conditions there similar or different from those at the Paola prisons or whatever they call them nowadays?
iii. Do our laws provide for apt punishment for such grave cases or are there inconsistencies between different laws covering different crimes and inconsistencies in the way sentences and punishments are handed down?
These issues go beyond the Arrigo case and reports should be such as to dispel the perception that he was preferential treatment; unless one has some hard proof that there was any kind of privilege given.
It is unfortunate that the media reports raised these issues without addressing them properly. It is a bigger pity that many of the people who blogged in dogmatic terms about these issues showed that they know next to nothing about the substance or core of the arguments on each issue. People shoot from the hip and shoot in a way that resembles the pronunciation of a dogma. It seems that the less people know about a subject the more authoritatively they feel they can talk about it!
A number of blogs not connected to media institutions have found their place in cyberspace. This is the nature of this medium. However there is a kind of legal limbo when one needs to defend oneself from monstrosities written in cyberspace. One can, for example, register a blog in Timbaktu on a false address and write what one wants against anyone one with almost total impunity. Whoever is defamed or lied about can do nothing. This is an abuse.
There is another point I would like to raise. The release of Arrigo coincided with the Gospel reading about forgiveness. We who continually ask God for forgiveness should not refuse to forgive those who trespass against us – personally or as part of society. I was shocked by the spirit of revenge that characterised several comments about this release from prison. There was an attitude based on the belief that there are sins, crimes and mistakes that whoever commits them cannot be pardoned or redeemed. What does society gain from such an anti-Christian and anti-human attitude?
A society that does not treasure the gift of forgiveness is a poor society indeed.
AN EXPERIENCE NOT TO BE REPEATED
Last Saturday a relative phoned me asking me to take her to a health centre. She had slipped and hurt her arm which was now swollen.
We went to the B'Kara Health Centre sometime after 11.00a.m. They told us that such injuries are beyond their competence. I was tempted to drive to Mater Dei which is practically round the corner. But I remembered the authorities' myriad appeals that we should go to a health centre before going to the hospital. Stupid I drove to Mosta. Access to the Health Centre was very difficult as someone had planned a do in the parking place adjacent to the centre and most roads to the Health Centre were closed. Somehow I arrived.
We were seen to and my relative was sent to take an X-Ray. It was just a few minutes after noon. The X-Ray people were on break till 1.30p.m. We had to wait for almost one and half hours. The X-Ray was eventually taken and we were told .... You guessed it .... To go to Mater Dei!
(My relative was lucky as the staff, that was very efficient and considerate, managed to find a sling! "They are out of stock these days", they told us. Is anyone held accountable when stuff is out of stock?)
We got there around 2.00p.m., registered and waited. We were ready at 5.00p.m.
By that time my relative had spent six hours in pain. Had I ignored the appeals of the authorities and went directly to Mater Dei we would probably have been served in a shorter time. Next time I think I will skip Mosta; though I hope that there will not be a next time!