The Editor, Sir:

I imagine that there are those among us who will affirm that justice has been served in the Stephen Fray aeroplane hijack incident. Yet others would contend otherwise

Many are left wondering if making an example out of a diagnosed schizophrenic is the best approach to be used to ensure deterrence. I say deterrence because as one would perhaps reckon, one of the main aims of the criminal law is to discourage aping by potential criminals. After this week's judgment, one wonders though if this is a realistic approach to dealing with criminals in our society. It also raises questions about our justice system.

making examples

Do we exist in a legal system which attempts to make examples of 'unfortunate' individuals in order to 'teach society a lesson'? If the convict, Fray, was correctly diagnosed then arguably sentencing him for 83 years under our present rehabilitation situation is not a wise move. I am quite certain that there are facilities available for mentally challenged individuals.

Hence, instead of imposing sentences to run concurrently and which will amount to approximately 20 years in prison at most, why not place Fray in a more suitable environment?

I strongly believe that while it is necessary and just to give him his due punishment, it is impractical to use his acts to exemplify what could happen to potential criminals if they cross the line. This I believe is a grand opportunity to revisit this aspect of our Constitution which speaks to our inalienable rights.

Chapter three suggests that people are entitled to a fair trial. However, how fair is a trial which to the average onlooker seeks to make an example of a convicted individual who in many respects was not acting in his 'right mind'. Even if this is not the case or the intention of the judgment, it does raise questions.

I am, etc.,

SHAUNA_KAYE BROWN

Shaunabrown2005@yahoo.com

Cedar Valley, Sligoville PO

St Catherine