The Editor, Sir:

Most of the discussions I have heard since the young policeman voluntarily admitted to fabricating evidence has centred on whether he should have or shouldn't have. I have been thinking about another aspect, however: Why did this young policeman feel the necessity to do this to get a dangerous man off the street?

Frustrating

For decades, the judicial system has been less than fair to the police, and the rest of us have been complicit with our silence. They are the ones who have to brave the bullets to apprehend dangerous men. It must be very frustrating when, in the twinkling of an eye, these persons are back on the streets, bolder and more brutal than before.

The main problem is that witnesses are, understandably, reluctant to testify. The length of time it takes to bring a matter to conclusion in our courts gives the perpetrator more than enough time to silence that witness, taint the jury and send a general message to anyone who is harbouring similar notions. This is why the public seems to support extra-judicial killings as there is now a firm, almost universal view, that this is the only way to rid ourselves of murderers. The trouble with this arrangement is that it lends itself to mischief and corruption.

Those of us whose heads are not fully buried in the sand know that gunmen are now walking into public places like the clinic on Slipe Road, blowing people away, secure in the knowledge that no one would dare testify. Solve this solvable problem and the crime (murder) figures will plummet.

It took the Church to offer a kind word in favour of this young policeman. Whatever the motivation, if a public servant has a contrite heart we should be more welcoming. He should not have to run the gauntlet to come in from the cold.

I am, etc.,

GLENN TUCKER

Stony Hill, Kingston 9