THE EDITOR, Sir:I WATCHED ON television recently the treatment of a 'robber' who was 'rescued' by a team from a private security company.
The man was accused of being a robber and the police who were on hand to rescue him from being lynched were unable to keep the crowd at bay.
On television, I saw the man in the back of the van, cornered, being kicked by one of the two guards who were in the van with him. I was sad.
Then came an interview from a corporal of police who justified the beating of a cornered man trapped in the back of the pickup.
According to the corporal, the beating was to prevent his escape. It would seem implausible to me that an individual, rescued from a murderous mob, would try to escape his rescuers, to go back to the mob. But that is my opinion.
Soon after that, I saw the Ombudsman, Howard Hamilton, on television, livid and waxing lyrical about the treatment of a woman who was left outside the comprehensive clinic for four days.
My question is: Is the treatment of this woman worse than the treatment of an accused 'robber' now in custody? Does the high level of crime justify brutality?
It is in times like these when we need the intervention of the leaders of our nation, to say in no uncertain manner, what the minimum standard of acceptable treatment of Jamaicans in custody is.
My opinion is that the beating of a man, cornered in the back of van, is wrong and a message needs to be sent that that type of behaviour will not be tolerated. Silence, in my opinion, indicates consent.
I would urge the relevant authorities (read, commissioner, head of the private security company and the Ministry of Security) to issue statements on this matter.
I am, etc.,
Dr. PAUL WRIGHT
14 Spanish Court, New Kingston
