A lot of people have a lot to say about the recent case resulting in Jolyan Silvera pleading guilty to killing his wife, Melissa. This case involves science, criminal law, and multi-agency cooperation, setting the stage for much misunderstanding.

The problem with misunderstandings is that people or organisations are often chastised, rather than celebrated. Vulnerable people are sometimes forgotten in the media storm that follows famous people or cases. The average person does not understand ballistics science. He/she understands law even less.

The Jolyan Silvera case is a classic example of how the public can misunderstand what occurred, why it occurred, and why specific decisions were taken. So let us take it from the top.

The most important aspect of the case, whether the offence be deemed manslaughter or murder, was the ballistics evidence that matched the recovered bullet to the barrel of the licensed Glock pistol owned by Silvera. This may seem a black and white issue to the average guy. To many, the ballistics evidence either matches or it doesn’t. That’s not quite how it is. Every match is subject to be challenged, regarding interpretation and analysis. Let me break it down for you.

Glock pistols use hammer-forged barrels. These types of barrels don’t have the unique striation marks as other barrels that are manufactured the traditional way. The striation markings are what make one barrel unique from another. These markings occur in the manufacturing of non-hammer-forged barrels. So, although there are some striation marks in hammer-forged barrels, there are significantly fewer than in a regular barrel.

The Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) expert matched a bullet recovered from the body of the victim to the Glock pistol owned by Silvera. The expert also, quite brilliantly, took an additional step and compared that bullet with the sample bullet that the Firearm Licensing Authority (FLA) took of the firearm. Even with these actions, the results could very much have been challenged by experts or in cross-examination. These results are always subjective. You have to remember that the jurors have no training in ballistics science.

Jamaica’s defence attorneys are, in my opinion, the best in the world. Jolyan Silvera had Peter Champagnie, King’s Counsel, as his lead attorney. Champagnie is considered top of the criminal bar at this time by any fair analysis. This, therefore, was not an open-and-shut case.

There was no evidence in relation to the actual shooting. There was nothing to say there was intent or premeditation. There were at least two shots fired. However, with a Glock pistol the second shot is often not intended, as the trigger is really light and does not necessarily remove the possibility of a knee-jerk reaction.

I would go as far as to say that it is ridiculous to look at this case and say that this murder was planned. It could not have happened in a worse location and with a worse murder weapon than what was used in its execution. Who uses their licensed gun to commit murder?

There is circumstantial evidence related to what occurred post-shooting. There was some degree of evidence that there was a quarrel prior to the shooting. If this case had gone to trial, and the defence had managed to create doubt in the ballistics evidence, it could have resulted in an acquittal. In fact, what I believe resulted in the accused’s confession was that his own expert agreed that the analysis that was done by the JCF expert matched the recovered bullet to the gun.

This is one of the elements of our firearm monitoring system that results from Jamaica having the best regulatory structure of registered gun control in the world. The FLA keeps a ballistics sample of every bullet for every licensed gun in Jamaica. This includes the spent casings and the actual projectile. It further keeps a digital print of both, and this is entered into a system that is tied to the Government’s forensics laboratory. This is next-level record-keeping of registered guns’ ballistics information.

The Government’s lab has JCF experts with whom very few international experts can compete with respect to the number of ballistics comparisons they have done. We are talking about personnel who have done examinations of firearms in the tens of thousands.

The matching of this bullet to the accused’s barrel was advanced expertise playing out in an environment of unique gun control. It could have been challenged. Instead, it was endorsed by the expert for the defence, who was brought in from the United Kingdom. This put the defence team in a position where the best they could hope for was manslaughter. Or they could ignore their own expert’s opinion and rely on the many other opinions that have been published on the issue.

The prosecution is intended to prosecute, not persecute (to steal a line from High Court judge Martin Gayle). The crime that was committed fits the parameters of manslaughter, so when the defence offered it, the most competent decision the prosecution could take was to accept it. This is the law. Many don’t consider it justice.

The job of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) is to prosecute cases according to the law of the land. This may not fulfil the criteria of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, which constitutes the perception of many of us as to what justice should be. The ODPP can’t allow our emotions to hinder the execution of its responsibility.

I believe the taking of a life should be punished with the taking of a life, but I don’t believe that any justice system in the world is competent enough to make decisions to kill people. It sounds confusing, but it’s not.

Our penal system has moved away, theoretically speaking, from a structure designed to punish. Not even the penitentiary system was designed simply for punishment. It was designed to create an environment where the convicted would be forced to penitently consider his/her crimes in order to bring about a change in behaviour.

We now have a system with programmes in place to rehabilitate the convicted and their damaged characters — well, at least in theory. However, within this system the accused are warehoused like dogs in a pound, and in absolute squalor.

Their lives are constantly at risk because they are surrounded by the lowest level of humanity that the world can produce. It is as hot as hell, too dark to read in, there are improper degrees of fresh air, and there’s food I wouldn’t feed my least favourite dog.

Jolyan Silvera will suffer for his moment of loss of control in a way that you cannot imagine. This will occur because the systems in place did their jobs, in keeping with the laws of our land. It will occur because of a penal system that still functions as if intended to make the convicted worse, rather than release them back into society. This is not the fault of employees of the correctional services. This is the fault of a society that does not want to hear about billions being spent to rehabilitate “dutty criminal”.

Although I can understand and appreciate the sentiments of society, I cannot allow myself to be that naïve. I know that our penal system is releasing people 10 times worse than the way they went in, so I know this is a bad idea.

As I have said before, if you plan to keep them forever, then continue treating them like animals. However, if you plan to release them back into society, then we need to spend billions on the penal system. It’s that simple.

To close, this is a tragedy that has destroyed several lives and is a lesson on the many elements of domestic conflict. Provocation, staying in unions that are no longer healthy, keeping loaded and charged guns in your homes, hate, love, and mandatory intervention by State agencies are all elements that we can study because of this case.

Let us hope that we learnt some lessons that may prevent another person from killing someone whom they once loved.

Feedback: drjasonamckay@gmail.com