THERE has been much discussion, discourse, and criticism recently after the Crown and the trial judge accepted a guilty plea for manslaughter from accused Jolyan Silvera for his part in the killing of his wife. I recall writing an article explaining the wisdom of the decision and urging the public to trust the decisions made by professionals.

Well, now we are past the sentencing. A 54-year-old man has received a sentence that will most likely mean, based on national mortality averages, he will die in prison. So do you believe me now?

Many still say, “They should have gone for murder.” Why? The desired result is that the guilty man goes to jail for the remainder of his natural life; this has been achieved.

There are so many elements to this case that warrant discussion, and I am glad that the chief justice had the sentence live-streamed. We got to see what the alleged provocation was. We got a glimpse into the world in which this popular married couple lived. Based on what was said, and if it is true, then I agree that the defence of provocation could have had some standing.

I actually agree that any normal person would be provoked if they were told that they were having sex with their sister, that they should go and have sex with their mother, that they were responsible for their child’s death, and that they should go and kill the other children.

I would ask, however, why the response to that provocation involved a gun. Crimes of passion tend to lean more in the direction of personal contact. Also, why would provocation cause you to go the full distance to shoot? Why not punch, or some other strike? If a man had told you that, would you have responded the same way? How would you have responded if that man had a gun too?

Any violence is wrong, violence involving tools of death even worse. At the Jamaica Rifle Association I sometimes compete with women who soundly thrash me in sport shooting. It’s their thing, they are sport shooters. I am a combatant.

If Silvera’s wife were one of them and had her gun on her, would he have tried that? I would advise anyone not to. They may not be combatants but they could shoot someone three times within less than a second of drawing the weapon from their waist.

So, although I recognise the claim of provocation as a legal defence, I don’t think shooting someone for words is the behaviour of a reasonable man. Accepting the plea does not mean that the prosecution or the judge actually believes or agrees with the actions of the accused.

Our justice system is complex. It is this way to prevent innocent people from going to jail. It didn’t just arrive like this, it took trial and error over centuries to create the justice system that we have today. Remember, several of our heroes were executed by the same system — unjustifiably. There is a strong belief in certain quarters that George William Gordon had little or nothing to do with the Morant Bay Rebellion and its subsequent carnage.

The fact that our justice system is complex also makes it possible for guilty men to get off. Always remember, Vybz Kartel is a free man — making his money and living his life — despite having been convicted on evidence that remains unchallenged.

Professionals have to work with the reality of the system. Why would you want them to go to trial with circumstantial evidence and a disputable ballistics match if the mechanism is in place to sentence an offender for 20 years?

In this case, the offender is already in his 50s. What is it that you hope would be achieved? Five more years? The system is structured the way it is to protect the public. It is so structured to prevent that knock in the middle of the night, after which your son is never seen again. Sounds far-fetched? Read up on the mothers in Argentina who marched in circles at Plaza de Mayo square protesting this very injustice perpetrated by the Government in the 70s.

The complexity of our system can, unfortunately, result in people being under-punished or acquitted. That did not happen in this case. A life sentence is not under-punishment!

No matter what you want to call the charge, the result is that the the convicted man, Silvera, will remain in the custody of the judicial system for the rest of his life. That is unless they choose to release him earlier — and they are not bound to do so.

This case encourages self-examination. It makes us consider whether we are in relationships that we need to get out of. Do we know our partners? Do we dislike our partners? Do our partners hate us? Are our minds or relationships in the right place for us to have loaded guns in our homes? Should the Firearm Licensing Authority begin to stipulate how guns are kept in our homes once we have secured the perimeter from outsiders?

There are already stipulations in some jurisdictions like the United States that require you to take at least three steps before your gun can be fired during commution. This is to discourage knee-jerk reactions when in a temper that can be caused by road rage.

A marriage can be as provoking as dealing with a taxi man whilst commuting — both for women and for men. Nothing evokes anger like domestic conflict. If we have learnt nothing else from this case, we should learn that chronic violence is not restricted to any social grouping. This crime was not just brutal, it showed the degree of manipulation that is possible when self-preservation becomes your primary intention.

I don’t want to hear about dodging responsibility because of concern for your children. The manipulation of the crime scene was so done to save the offender. The children were put in a life-altering reality when a man decided to use a firearm to settle a domestic dispute.

Feedback: drjasonamckay@gmail.com