I doubt if any reader of this column would know who “Hanoi Jane” was.

That was actually the name given to Jane Fonda who, as you know, is a famous American actress.

The name was not created because of any role she had played in a movie, but rather because she had visited Hanoi, the capital of North Vietnam, during the middle of the American-Vietnam war in 1972, as part of her activities against America’s participation in the Vietnam War.

She did not spend a day in prison for this act that I personally consider treason.

Muhammed Ali, the boxer who was the world champion during this era, refused to participate in this very same conflict by becoming a conscientious objector and he was stripped of his World Championship title, barely missing prison.

Christopher “Dudus” Coke ran a drug empire in the United States from Jamaica, refused extradition, and participated in a stand-off with the Jamaican Government that led to the death of dozens of people, to include a member of the Jamaica Defence Force (JDF). He was sentenced to 23 years in prison.

A mental patient named Stephen Fray in 2009 stole his dad’s revolver, stormed a plane at Sangster International Airport, and took the crew and passengers hostage before being overpowered by JDF soldiers. He was initially given a sentence of more than 70 years in prison.

The above examples do not demonstrate that rules were broken, but rather that they weren’t.

Discretion is normally that element that makes justice an elusive target, but sometimes it can’t be utilised because of the law. I can’t say that I would disagree or agree with how each situation was dealt with because each had its own dynamic that the decision-makers had to take into account.

In Coke’s case you give up something to get a guilty plea. In the case of Jane Fonda, the war was unpopular and the Government had to tread lightly; by that point in the war even the Vatican was criticising America’s bombing of Hanoi — so there were mitigating factors.

Rules sometimes are really the problem, especially rules or laws that involve mandatory sentences. Not all rules are justified, although there are reasons why they were created.

Let’s look at squatting. If you leave your land idle and allow people to put a small structure on it, after 12 years they could own it, especially if they pay the taxes. So they haven’t worked a day for it, they have simply utilised it, yet they can own it. This can’t be fair or justified, but it’s the rule.

This rule has allowed for squatting to become not a means to an end, but an epidemic that strangles the development of cities, creates garrisons and voting blocks, and justifies stealing land. All this without breaking a rule. Again, you can’t blame judges, because it’s the law.

If you work hard to buy your home and decide to marry a man or a woman and move him or her in there, you may be surprised to know that the very house that you bought yourself becomes marital property and you only own half. If the marriage ends, the freeloader is entitled to half the value. There are arguments you can make to defend this position, but the essence of the rule is as I described.

The rule, though created in good faith, allows for people to steal other people’s property. Up until 1834 the laws in Jamaica allowed for the ownership of people, so, never confuse rules or laws with justice.

The simple existence of a law does not mean that justice will be achieved in its application. The law that allowed for the drafting of men like Muhammed Ali for the US Army has since been repealed. It is the same for laws that allow the ownership or indentured terms of humans.

Maybe it’s time we look at the law that governs the legal responsibility of people who are mentally challenged. Or the law that covers ownership of land by capturing it.

Laws need to reflect justice. That should be the essence of it. If a law is on the books that does not provide this, then it needs to be reviewed and removed. I am a firm believer in the Church and the part it plays in our society, but I don’t think breaking into a church and stealing property should be covered by a law that is any different from the law that is relative to breaking into a regular business place. I have no problem if they both send the offender away for decades, but I don’t see where differentiating them is justified.

Do we ever look on laws before they become unpopular and change them just because they are not providing justice? Or do we keep them just because? Never confuse laws with justice. It is the intention of most legal systems in the world to provide justice for all, but the courts are limited to rule according to the law.

Off the top of my head I can think of three various components of the law that I have highlighted which do not seem justified. We, therefore, have to remember that it is not every time a perceived injustice takes place that the judge or the system is wrong. It’s simply the rules being followed. So, maybe we should change some rules.

Feedback: drjasonamckay@gmail.com