July 16, 2002

Dear Sir,

You will recall recently Assistant Justice Archie Warner reacted to the reduction of the sentence by the Appeals Court in a case that involved an adult male who sexually abused a fourteen year old boy. It was reported in The Royal Gazette that Justice Warner exclaimed: “What am I to do, I must follow the precedent of the Appeals Court when sentencing persons found guilty of sexually abusing children.”

It was also reported in The Royal Gazette that mention was made in Appeals Court that the boy had consented to have sex with the adult and the lower court should have taken that fact into consideration when sentencing. The Appeals Court reduced the sentence considerably; whether on that argument or on other considerations, I don't know. However it read as though that was the defence lawyer's main argument.

It was my understanding that an underage child cannot consent to sex in law. That the onus in a case of an adult having sex with a minor is entirely on the adult.

I would suggest to Mr. Justice Warner that he should continue to apply the sentence he feels is justified to adults who are found guilty of sexually exploiting minors, particularly those who callously and deceitfully exploit them, and persons in positions of trust.

The law was changed to provide sentences that reflect the seriousness of such crimes in our community, and to give the courts the ability to apply greater sentences, to deter those who would engage in sexual exploitation of children.

Until Mr. Justice Warner came along, it seemed the Court was not sensitive to the seriousness of the problems of child abuse and its long-term negative effects in the community.

Mr. Justice Warner should continue to apply ten year sentences were he thinks they are justified, and sooner, we hope, rather than later, others will get the message Mr. Justice Warner should know there are many who admire his courage, understanding and sensitivity.

QUINTON EDNESS

Warwick

August 13, 2002

Dear Sir,

I have to agree with MP Michael Dunkley's comments on VSB last night (August 12) regarding the punishment of murderers and other violent criminals. I may be very old-fashioned in this respect, but my view is that, if you take somebody else's life, your own should be forfeit unless you can provide a very good reason why not.

Let's face it; we are far too soft on violent criminals these days. In fact, I feel that the laws of the land today are bent over backwards to favour those who are most likely to break them.

My own view is that Government has been scared to put murderers to death ever since December, 1977, because of the riots that followed the executions of Messrs Burrows and Tacklyn, and I'm inclined to blame the then Premier for that. I know hindsight is always 20/20 but, instead of publicly announcing the date of the execution a week beforehand as he did, why didn't he just bring the hangman in on the last plane one day, have him conduct the executions at midnight, get him out again on the first plane the following day, and announce at noon that “two convicted murderers were executed last night: End of story”?

Can somebody please explain to me just why a convicted murderer these days should be sent to the West End Hilton for “life” (maximum usually 25 years), and get a roof over his head, a comfortable bed, three square meals a day, all sorts of recreational facilities, and the chance to further his education, all at public expense?

What about the victim's family and friends? How do they feel? They've lost a loved one for ever, and the murderer is being looked after for the rest of his “life” at our expense. Is that “justice”? Think about it.

DAVIE KERR

St. George's

August 11, 2002

Dear Sir,

As the father of a teenage son who participated in the World Youth Day gathering in Toronto, I offer an alternative to the opinion expressed by Mr. John A. Clay of Paget. The young people who participated from my son's Roman Catholic school were invited on the basis of substantial and consistent service to the community over the last several years.

Examples include unpaid volunteer work to assist senior citizens who need help with chores, literacy programmes for children, and visiting patients in hospitals and nursing homes. Coincidentally or otherwise, these young people are all above average students who apply discipline and determination to their academic work and a range of extracurricular activities.

Mr. Clay is correct that young people should cultivate self reliance and optimism. However, rather than limit character-building to the development of “independence”, they should apply their strength to the kindness of looking after others who could benefit from their help.

The young people who met in Toronto, and others throughout the world who share their commitment, represent the best hope for the future of mankind.

JAMES E. FARRELL Jr.

Garden City, New York

P.s. This is our family's ninth visit to Bermuda since my wife and I first enjoyed our honeymoon at the Hamilton Princess in June, 1974!

August 8, 2002

Dear Sir,

Your “Abandoned dogs face bleak, short future” article on Tuesday, July 30, 2002 saddened me greatly for several reasons. Firstly, both dogs should have been spayed and neutered upon entering the SPCA's care.

To rely on potential adopters for this surgery is foolhardy. A lot can happen between the time an unaltered animal is adopted out and the SPCA's contract “deadline” to have the animal altered. The SPCA's adoption fee should reflect the cost of spaying or neutering. If an adopter squawks at the cost of adopting an SPCA spayed/neutered dog or cat, then clearly this person is not going to give the animal the proper care it will need throughout its life and should be listed as a DNA, US rescue organisations' abbreviation for Do Not (allow to) Adopt.

Secondly, your article states that the dogs have been at the SPCA for about four months. Doesn't the SPCA have foster facilities for dogs such as these two, who have “issues”? Surely there are funds to help create a foster situation for dogs who are adoptable but need to be in an environment where someone can work on their issues.

The probable reason the Bulldog rescue organisation in the US was willing to take these two was because they do have foster homes that can work with the dogs and rehome them. US Humane Societies, shelters, and the like, are working with breed-specific and no-breed-specific rescue organisations.

Finally, how terribly, terribly tragic that an island so small, with so many gentle people, has allowed itself to become overrun by a few morons who abuse animals physically and emotionally, and then dump them for the “gentle” folk to deal with.

MARIA ZAYATZ

St. George's

August 12, 2002

Dear Sir,

I am a mother of two small children. I have been seeking living accommodations since November 2001, because I am living in an abusive household and have been order by the courts to find other living accommodations for my children or they will be placed in foster care.

I have been Islandwide seeking an apartment for my children and myself; the only response I have been receiving is “I am sorry we don't want children here”.

Why is it that I have an excellent job, well-behaved children and a pleasant personality; landlords are still turning me down because I am a single mother. Correct me if I am wrong, we need a place to lay our heads also. I have been to every real estate agency on the island, the Housing Corporation, sent out flyers, hounded people that I know and even driven about, looking for empty apartments. The rents that landlords are asking for is out of this world and their preferences are to the extreme also. For example, why would a landlord have a two-bedroom apartment and specify they are looking for a couple but no children. What is the logic of that, why would a couple with no children need a two-bedroom apartment?

To be very honest, as long as a landlord is receiving rent on time and the apartment is kept in good condition, there should be no reason for complaint. Also, if they have had one bad experience with a tenant, why should the rest of us suffer for another's mistake?

SINGLE MOTHER

Pembroke