Murder

It was such a sad little affair that I couldn’t even find it on Google this morning.

I got to know Bob Day at Aberystwyth University.  In fact it was at the Cwrt Mawr bar we first met.  Bob was in his forties, an ex-butcher who was studying International Affairs.  Both being mature students and somewhat outsiders, we became friends.  It wasn’t until a couple of years later, when Bob graduated that I got to meet his family.  It is so long ago now that I can’t even remember everybody’s name but there was Jenny his wife, and their teenage children Jasclene (pronounced Jacqueline) and her slightly older brother, whose face I can still see.  I spent weekends down in Cardigan with them and it was a great time.  Jenny helped improved my cooking techniques; we all played badminton and board games together and shot pool when down the pub.   As I recall, Jasclene was a little sweet on me but all was innocent. 

As is usual with any Arcadia though, there was darkness beneath.  I had noticed that over the past year Bob was becoming increasingly pedantic.  He would take the time to explain in detail the most prosaic functions of daily life.  Once Jenny got to know me, she started to express worries about him.   Bob had a large vertical indent right in the middle of his forehead which Jenny told me had been put there in a car accident six years previously.   Since that time, Jenny said, she had been married to a different man.

It was the autumn of 1995 when the cracks started to open.  I usually called the family once a week but this time Bob called me.  Jenny had started to have an affair with a neighbour.  Although I was in my late twenties in many ways I was still pretty immature.  Relationship management was certainly outside my remit at that point.  I didn’t know what to say.
Two weeks went by.  I called but no answer on their telephone.  I tried again and again with the same result.   It was my final year, I had no clue what was happening so it was with some surprise and upset that in December I received a letter from Jasclene that told of a road accident involving both Bob and Jenny.  He was still in hospital but Jenny had died after six days in a coma.  Naturally I wrote back; which hospital?  Where can I visit Bob?  How is everybody else?  No reply.

It wasn’t until April 1996, just before my finals, that Bob himself got in contact.  He was still in hospital in Haverfordwest.  I added the cost of a hire car to my overdraft and hit the road south.  Incidentally I think that was the drive I also started my hate-affair with GM cars.  It was a green 1.7 diesel Astra with all the reactions of a startled sloth.

Bob was in hospital, either in bed or a wheelchair for in the accident his back had been broken, losing the ability to use his legs.  He was also in police custody, charged with the murder of Jenny.  To my face Bob said he simply could not believe it; it was such a vast misunderstanding.  He had taken Jenny out for a drive and on a dangerous mountain bend above Cardigan had lost control, plunging them both over.  A tragic accident.  He asked me to help and the following week I gave a statement to his solicitor.  That was the last time I saw him.

After graduation, I passed through Cardigan en route to Aberystwyth in order to say farewell to friends.  I was starting my current career in Aberdeen that October.  Between buses, I went into a pub in Cardigan.  Naturally Bob and his family were high in my thoughts.

“Tragic about that accident last year.”
“What accident?” asked the young barman.
“The one where Jenny Day was killed.”
“That was no accident,” he stated with some anger.
“What?”
“If it was an accident, why did the bastard leave a note for her boss telling him what he meant to do?”

Bob, what have you done?

I was in training in Texas when the trial came up.  The defence wanted me to testify.  I agreed to have my statement read out in court.  Robert Day was found guilty of murder and sentenced to three years on the grounds of diminished responsibility.   Naturally the wheel-chair is a life sentence.

                                                            *            *        *

The murder of Jenny Day was the closest I have been involved in the killing of another person but I have known other victims.  A colleague and friend lost his entire family at about the same time.  A guest at my wedding subsequently lost his life and my mother-in-law lost other friends to violence.  So it was with some interest I pricked up my ears this morning when changes where suggested to murder sentencing.    In the brief debate I tended to support Lord Faulkner’s view that there should be one charge of murder and then it is up to the judge to decide the sentence.  However, I would support a greater degree of flexibility on how the judge lays out the sentence.  Perhaps there should be a grading at this point; from whole life term, down to first and second degree through to man-slaughter, each with its own minimum term before parole can be applied for.   The jury could perhaps issue a private recommendation to the judge but the judge would have the final decision.   Naturally the licence system, the power of the courts to recall any murderer to prison, would stay in place.

This structure would help those involved to understand that the current “life” sentence doesn’t mean life but the crime of murder always is held in the highest seriousness.

Writing Again.

It’s rather alarming how quickly one can become institutionalised. From October I have been travelling; mostly between Edinburgh and Aberdeen at first but then northern Italy, Holland and as some of you who have read earlier blogs, several months in Israel. Within four days of my return from the Near East, I was out again, travelling to a rig off southern Norway with connecting flights via Denmark. The week following my return I was again in Aberdeen arranging for the sale of my house. So, last week is my first complete week back with the family and to be frank, it is a weird feeling. The rolling stone has finally stopped, at least for a little while.

One would think that being in one place would be a wonderful opportunity to catch up and of course I have with my loved one. But mentally I have just not been able to face anything else. This will be the week to catch up on other neglected business, one of those being writing.

I promised to have a think about the best way to approach the recent crimes committed in Gaza. Now, it is one thing for people like me to write that word, it is a very different thing to prove it. But the laws do exist for groups and individuals to take such allegations to a court of law. From Arabic sources, there was some criticism of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issuing an arrest warrant for the Sudanese President Omar Al Bashir. The basis for this criticism is that it was seen mainly as a political act against a Western enemy. I wondered if Sudan was possibly a signatory to the ICC treaty. Of course it isn’t, but neither is Egypt, Syria, Iran, the USA or Israel. This is interesting as obviously the ICC’s remit covers crimes committed outside the signatory countries. Therefore I would suggest that those in the position of bearing first-hand witness to the recent events in Gaza pool their resources and gather evidence with the view of a submission to the ICC. An alternative avenue would be the Spain's courts, as Spanish law allows for an international arrest warrant to be issued against those charged with crimes against humanity, wherever the events were alleged to have taken place.

It is most probable that these processes are already underway. Why they are so important is this: Israel’s collective punishment of Palestinians over the years have been widely and rightly criticised and being both immoral and unjust. By the same logic therefore, I cannot support the call for embargo and sanctions against Israel. Collective punishment is never right. The individuals who directly take the decisions to proceed in a manner that can be shown to be criminal should be the people who bear the responsibility.
Under liberal values, the rule of law has precedence over all other considerations. That fundamental of western society cannot be compromised: when it has been in the past critics have been quite correct in raising charges of hypocrisy.

Below I have included a link for the ICC which lists the 108 nations and territories that has signed its charter. Apart from the USA, other notable non-signatories include Russia, China, Pakistan and India. This is not to say that all is rosy in the gardens of those countries who have signed: members include Brazil and Columbia for instance. But the step of putting the law of law first, at least in principle, is an important one for any nation to take. It is a principle that should be applied equally: to those who are perceived to be our friends as well as our foes.


Chosen Links.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Home
http://www.icc-cpi.int/NetApp/App/MCMSTemplates/StatePartiesIndex.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID={7A50B016-A0B6-43EB-AFF8-15FCEDC03D02}&NRORIGINALURL=/Menus/ASP/states+parties/&NRCACHEHINT=Guest#B

The Archbishop and Shari'a

In an interview for The World at One, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the world-wide Anglican church, put forward the argument that elements of Shair’a law should be introduced into British law. This was in order to avoid Muslims having “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.

Naturally, the Archbishop has been jumped upon from all sides of the political…(I was going to write “spectrum” there but upon reflection the political spectrum seems rather monochrome these day. But I digress..). More predictable will be the tabloid rants that will follow in the morning. Both The Sun and The Daily Mail are going to have a lot of fun at Dr. Williams’ expense.

So, what did the Archbishop actually say? A lot more than is being reported, even on the BBC. Dr. Williams is taking part in an ongoing debate in the future of multi-culturalism. This latest contribution is an attempt to address and expand the role of multi-culturalism in the framework of the nation-state.

Crudely put, the premise is thus: we are currently living in a post-Enlightenment world. People live in a multitude of over-lapping communities, each with their own culture, tradition and values. How do we allow people in such a society to follow their own way of life without compromising the rights of their fellow human beings, both those in their own cultural group, and those in adjacent groups?

By highlighting one specific aspect, that of Muslim communities and Shari’a, Dr Williams is effectively attempting to role back the nation-state, although not in the simple-minded way that doubtless will fill the newspapers tomorrow. The Archbishop also raises the dangers of human-rights abuses that can and do occur under Shari’a, abuses that simply are not to be tolerated under a Western democracy (and, I would argue, under any regime).

But it seems to me that Dr. Williams is a believer, but not of the Enlightenment. Although grateful for “the wake up call” that the Enlightenment has given religion, he is no great believer in what he sees as extreme examples of Enlightenment government in action, singling out Revolutionary France and China of the1970s. To my mind, neither is a great example. France descended into anarchy and bloodshed after the overthrow of the monarchy, and China was just rid of Mao, whose brutality exceeded none and whose permanent revolution was based on nothing more than state-encouraged violence.

What would be the future role of the State? It seems to be the guarantee of last resort for “human dignity”: a baseline which, it is believed that all can agree too. An individual would have rights guaranteed by the State, but would be free to suspend these if they so choose. But also one would be free to act upon those rights; nor could anybody stop another acting upon their rights if they so choose. Under Shari’a, that would effectively mean that apostasy could not carry the usual penalty (i.e. death). It would also mean that communities would be free to draw up codes that would have legal weight, especially in the areas of finance or civil disputes.

As things stands in Britain today, I think that Dr. Williams’ suggestions, although interesting, rather over-complicate matters. He is right to raise the issue of law and the plural society but Britain has always had a tradition, until very recently, of the citizen having negative rights. What I mean by this is that in Britain, if there is no law saying that a citizen is forbidden from doing something, then the citizen has the freedom to do it. This state is in contradiction to the European model of positive State rights: if there is no law allowing a certain act, then it is forbidden.

As applied to this debate, there is already room for groups to live how they choose. But if any religion has a set of laws that can be seen to have benefit to a community, why limit it to just that community? There is a political process in Britain that allows any citizen or group to put forward ideas, regardless of which philosophy the given idea is based upon. Let the suggested law be upheld to public scrutiny and, if it is a good law, then let it be passed into statute. That way, instead of being a more fragmented society, Britain becomes a lot more inclusive for all.