Devon Dick

Daily Observer reporter Paul Henry in a story entitled 'Radio producer gets suspended sentence for carnal abuse' states that a 32-year-old KLAS FM employee sexually assaulted a 13-year-old girl for three years, and then threatened to send men to kill her should she disclose her ordeal.

This trauma started in 2002 when the underage girl was living with a relative and he entered her room while she was sleeping and assaulted her. She awoke and fought him, but he overpowered her. The following day he threatened her.

After repeated assaults, she left the relative and went to the mother who found out about this heinous crime one day because the girl fainted. The radio producer got a suspended sentence of three years on two counts of carnal abuse (April 2, 2007).

There are several serious issues arising from this judgement. Why was the allegation only sexual assault and conviction only for carnal abuse and not rape?

The next question is why was the convict not imprisoned? There needs to be equity in sentencing. One of the grouses aired at a recent consultation of the Jamaican Justice Reform Task Force held in Morant Bay, St. Thomas, was that judgements handed down seemed unfair. This point was reinforced by a report on ZIP radio on Holy Thursday which stated that a man committed carnal abuse, and even after character evidence was given that he was a good citizen, the judge sent him to prison. Same crime, same character witness but one is imprisoned and the other not?

Abuse of a victim

Another strange thing about the ruling is that the victim and her mother were allowed to ask that the convict be not imprisoned. This is abuse of a victim. This is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is bad enough that his boss and community members spoke highly of him and that was taken into consideration in not sending him to prison, but to allow the underage victim to ask for leniency was a callous act. Leave the victim out of the judgement!

In any case, the giving of character evidence that the accused is a good person, in this case, is not a reason for a lighter sentence, but rather the basis for a harsher sentence. He had been abusing the child for three long years! If the convict is such a lovely person then he should know better than to be carnally abusing a child and should get a harsher sentence than someone who is a vagabond. The Bible does prescribe more stripes for those who know better and do not do better.

Problem with judgement

This country, through that judgement, is not taking paedophiles seriously. Our children are abused and 'a nuh nutten'. This was the point that the Dionne Jackson-Miller-produced 'All Angles' on TVJ explored on Sunday.

Another serious problem with the judgement as reported is that no punishment was given for the threat to the victim's life. What about zero tolerance to threats to life. Are we saying that this society is not child friendly and tolerant of violence?

And another thing, where is the outrage in the society against carnal abuse and this outrageous judge-ment? More moral outrage was displayed by opinion leaders and more media attention was given to children who broke school rules by wearing bling shoes than the carnal abuse of a schoolgirl and this outrageous sentence.

This carnal abuse is a felony and not a misdemeanour, so why no imprisonment?

The Chief Justice should investigate this ruling. This child abuse and outrageous judgement needs investigation and explanation.