Orville Taylor, Contributor
In high school as a 12-year-old, I cheated on a test. While that in itself was immoral, it was more reprehensible because it was a religious studies quiz.
Very carefully, I scribbled subtle hints of the Beatitudes. "Blessed are the innovative because they will bandooloo the system." As fate and faith would have it, the sweat from my nervous palms erased or blurred the writings. Thus, my answers were not only off the Mark, but also Luke, John and Matthew. God had spoken and the wicked did not prosper.
It has taken three decades to make this confession. Therefore, the mere two that Detective Constable Carey Lyn-Sue pondered before relenting to his 'conscience' is relatively short.
For some of the religious right, he is a hero, because he has come forward and done the 'right thing'. After all, this is fundamental to the principles of Christianity. As my respected friend, Catholic apologist Michael 'Man fi look like man' Burke, remarks, confession is a critical step on the journey towards salvation.
Be prepared for punishment
Certainly, in the context of secular life, it is important to achieve restitution, right the wrong and if possible, rehabilitate the offender. Some suggest that he should be embraced and not discriminated against.
However, acceptance of guilt is not the same as being exonerated, because the natural order of things requires that we take responsibility for our actions.
Thus, the cheating spouse will think that lying and guilt are either poison or dangerous weapons, then bares his or her soul because "it is killing mi!"
However, like the embezzler, who betrays his colleagues by confessing to their collective guilt, he or she must be prepared to handle the consequences of his or her action. The penalty could likely mean the break up of the marriage, dismissal, conviction for a criminal offence, or, in a best-case scenario, an irreparable breach in the fabric of trust.
Whatever it might be, the guilty must be prepared for punishment. True, admission of culpability is a mitigating factor in sentencing, but not a free pass to avoid it. That is why the fallen American athletic 'heroine' got a small paragraph instead of a token sentence.
While it is indeed the proper and decent thing to have done, there is nothing heroic about Lyn-Sue's sudden epiphany. He is a scoundrel to have committed his dastardly deed in the first place.
There is something very warped about the way some elements in western societies view the deviant. For example, American talk shows heap praise on the persons who have shown 'strength' in overcoming their drug addiction. Huh?
Why not praise the countless individuals, who, despite having all the challenges of too much money, fame and leisure, have managed to avoid the stuff? Sorry, those are my heroes, not the recovering junkie or crack head.
Of course, Lyn-Sue has now given fodder to the 55 per cent of Jamaicans who believe that the police are corrupt and that one third of them are culprits. Even this newspaper has joined the hysteria by highlighting police personnel currently in hot water.
Nevertheless, few people remember that the recent survey by Professor Ian Boxill and his colleagues from the University of the West Indies only revealed that fewer than 10 per cent of Jamaicans have ever experienced any unlawful practice with the police, even though more than 90 per cent of us felt that the force was corrupt.
I hold no brief for the police, at least not the men, but the Jamaican constabulary is not alone in having rogue cops, who falsify evidence in order to secure convictions.
Planting of evidence
For example, in Canton, Illinois, in 1955, Janice May, an eight-year-old, was discovered beside railroad tracks after being beaten and savagely raped. She succumbed to her injuries an hour later.
Taxi driver Lloyd Miller was subsequently convicted and sentenced to death. However, in 1963, it was revealed that the bloody underwear found at the scene was in fact painted red and the pubic hair on her body was not his.
In the UK, Robert Brown was given a life sentence in 1977 for the murder of 51-year-old Annie Walsh in her Manchester apartment. Yet, in 2002, it was found that the cops had concocted evidence.
Investigations into a 1991 carjacking case led to six New York troopers being charged in an evidence-tampering scandal in 1993. And who can forget racist cop Mark Fuhrman, with much less credibility than our imported namesake.
Fuhrman's planting of evidence was a key element in O.J. Simpson walking free of murder charges in 1995 many still believe that he was guilty.
Interestingly, between 1976 and 1998, some 75 persons originally condemned in American courts were subsequently released, most because of questionable police and prosecution practices. So, we are in good company.
Nonetheless, most of those lauding the courage of Lyn-Sue have not wondered if he is now telling the truth or whether there are present circumstances not yet known, which motivated him.
Are there inducements or threats? Is there any powerful criminal who is likely to benefit from his recantation? Let us see what the investigations reveal.
By the way, last week, the Most Honourable Edward Seaga suggested that Tivoli Gardens has consistently been unfairly treated by the police.
Regarding 1997 and perhaps 2001, he does have a point. But why didn't he discuss the events of 2006, featuring Bruce Golding? Doesn't he rate him? Furthermore, didn't Eddie himself once inform the police of criminals there?
Is it true that many Tivolites, whose property was recently destroyed by the police, have already been compensated?
In how many other Labourite inner-city strongholds would this happen without court action? There is more to confess.
Dr. Orville Taylor is senior lecturer in the Department of Sociology, Psychology and Social Work at UWI, Mona.
