February 8, 2002

Dear Sir,

I happened to be listening to David Lopes' excellent radio talk show a couple of mornings ago and one particular female caller was complaining about a certain individual who had apparently recently relocated to the Somerset area, after having been released some time ago from prison after serving 20 years for manslaughter.

Her complaint was that, if someone was sentenced to "life imprisonment", there should be laws on the books to keep that person in prison for "life" as opposed to 20 years or whatever. I was always under the impression that such laws were already on the books, and I personally think that the only reason that they're not being applied is, quite simply, spinelessness. I may be very old fashioned in this respect, but I feel that, if anyone takes someone else's life, his or her own should be forfeit unless he or she can produce a very good reason why not.

On that subject, does anyone remember a particularly gruesome murder in the Cedar Hill area several years ago, when a man slashed a woman and two little girls to death? That man is now up in Westgate with a roof over his head, a bed for the night, and three meals a day guaranteed, at the taxpayers' expense. Why?

Another instance: Back in late 1983, two Policemen were injured (one sustaining a fractured skull) during an incident in Southampton when they arrested a man with, not one, but two handguns in his car. That man was facing seven charges when he went to court, which could (and should) have put him away for about 50 years. What did he get? Seven years inside, time already served to count, and out after two-thirds of his time for good behaviour: effectively, four years. There are sufficient laws already on the books: I respectfully challenge our courts to use them!

DAVIE KERR

St. George's