ATROCITY DEMANDS JUSTICE WE MUST BE SURE TO PROVIDE IT
Atrocity demands justice, we must be sure we provide it
By SAM SMYTH
AS THE tidal wave of grief distils to narrowly focussed anger, simpering about civil liberties risks being accused of showing more concern about the bombers than their victims.
In the aftermath of Omagh, who cares if the suspects arrested for the massacre lose their presumption of innocence? Does it matter to anyone if those accused of mass murder forfeit their right to silence?
Everyone agrees that whoever perpetrated such an affront to civilisation should be hunted down and punished with all the rigour the law allows.
Whether they were premeditated serial killers or bungling trainee terrorists seems almost academic: the outcome was the same 28 men, women and children murdered, hundreds maimed, thousands grieve.
Justice demands that the butchers of Omagh be brought to book, and if it means curtailing a few legal niceties, that's the price we pay for preserving democracy. However, in the heat generated by the outrage, where blind revenge has gripped so many, the space between the accused and the perpetrator has been blurred. The legal safeguards which we were loath to forfeit before Omagh are dismissed as bolt-holes through which fascist terrorists can escape justice.
The new legislation promised by the government has been almost universally applauded, with predictable elements demanding even more Draconian powers for the police and judiciary.
Ministers beamed with a sort of parental pride announcing they are the most harsh in Europe, even the envy of many questionable South American regimes.
On paper they look impressive: directing an unlawful organisation carries a maximum of life imprisonment, apparently specifically aimed at the man and woman suspected of leading the "Real IRA''.
Anyone convicted of training persons in the use of firearms or explosives faces ten years in jail, which is designed to catch the ``Real IRA's'' bomb maker. But it's the less obvious changes in the law that may cause grief to suspects.
The police will do their utmost to avoid prosecuting innocents, but there have been lapses in the past and Draconian legislation makes it easier for history to repeat itself.
The lessons learned by the wrongful conviction of the Birmingham Six and Guilford Four are likely to be forgotten in the revulsion that followed Omagh. We are now in the After Omagh era where everything has changed and every event or circumstance will be used to buttress the Good Friday Agreement. When the vast majority, North and South, voted for the Agreement, it authorised the government to do whatever is necessary to protect our hopes for peace.
The Draconian legislation also had another spin-off it means an Irish government is virtually the guarantor of David Trimble's position, for which the Unionist leader is expected to show some gratitude.
However, safeguards must be built-in to the legislation so it doesn't become judicially supervised internment.
When it is the accused who must prove their innocence rather than the State prove their guilt, the integrity of the judiciary and the police could be grievously undermined.
Those of us who saw the Birmingham Six on their first court appearance, when they were called the accused, remember the public outrage at the mass slaughter which landed them in the dock.
And the process which convicted them appeared to be conducted by reasonable and professional people working to strict guidelines.
If we ignore this shameful episode of contemporary history, we may be condemned to repeat it.
By SAM SMYTH
AS THE tidal wave of grief distils to narrowly focussed anger, simpering about civil liberties risks being accused of showing more concern about the bombers than their victims.
In the aftermath of Omagh, who cares if the suspects arrested for the massacre lose their presumption of innocence? Does it matter to anyone if those accused of mass murder forfeit their right to silence?
Everyone agrees that whoever perpetrated such an affront to civilisation should be hunted down and punished with all the rigour the law allows.
Whether they were premeditated serial killers or bungling trainee terrorists seems almost academic: the outcome was the same 28 men, women and children murdered, hundreds maimed, thousands grieve.
Justice demands that the butchers of Omagh be brought to book, and if it means curtailing a few legal niceties, that's the price we pay for preserving democracy. However, in the heat generated by the outrage, where blind revenge has gripped so many, the space between the accused and the perpetrator has been blurred. The legal safeguards which we were loath to forfeit before Omagh are dismissed as bolt-holes through which fascist terrorists can escape justice.
The new legislation promised by the government has been almost universally applauded, with predictable elements demanding even more Draconian powers for the police and judiciary.
Ministers beamed with a sort of parental pride announcing they are the most harsh in Europe, even the envy of many questionable South American regimes.
On paper they look impressive: directing an unlawful organisation carries a maximum of life imprisonment, apparently specifically aimed at the man and woman suspected of leading the "Real IRA''.
Anyone convicted of training persons in the use of firearms or explosives faces ten years in jail, which is designed to catch the ``Real IRA's'' bomb maker. But it's the less obvious changes in the law that may cause grief to suspects.
The police will do their utmost to avoid prosecuting innocents, but there have been lapses in the past and Draconian legislation makes it easier for history to repeat itself.
The lessons learned by the wrongful conviction of the Birmingham Six and Guilford Four are likely to be forgotten in the revulsion that followed Omagh. We are now in the After Omagh era where everything has changed and every event or circumstance will be used to buttress the Good Friday Agreement. When the vast majority, North and South, voted for the Agreement, it authorised the government to do whatever is necessary to protect our hopes for peace.
The Draconian legislation also had another spin-off it means an Irish government is virtually the guarantor of David Trimble's position, for which the Unionist leader is expected to show some gratitude.
However, safeguards must be built-in to the legislation so it doesn't become judicially supervised internment.
When it is the accused who must prove their innocence rather than the State prove their guilt, the integrity of the judiciary and the police could be grievously undermined.
Those of us who saw the Birmingham Six on their first court appearance, when they were called the accused, remember the public outrage at the mass slaughter which landed them in the dock.
And the process which convicted them appeared to be conducted by reasonable and professional people working to strict guidelines.
If we ignore this shameful episode of contemporary history, we may be condemned to repeat it.
Further Information
Publisher: IRISH INDEPENDENT
Ref: II/071
Published Date: 21-Aug-98
Related Images
There have been no images archived for this article.