We well understand the hurt and the feeling among Ms Shantell White’s family that the reduced prison sentence handed down to the man who killed her did not match the crime.

However, on reading Justice Lorna Shelly Williams’ explanation, one can appreciate the logic, even as there is still great anger at what was a gruesome and brazen killing.

Justice Williams did say she had taken into consideration that any large sentence discount would shock the public’s conscience.

The killer, Mr Andre Bromfield — who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter instead of murder — was granted a 10 per cent discount from a sentence of 25 years. That reduced his sentence to 22 years and seven months, which was further reduced by one year based on an antecedent report, and by another year based on a social inquiry report. That took the number of years he was to serve in prison to 20 years and 10 months.

However, the fact that he had already spent two years and five months in custody guided Justice Williams to sentence him to 18 years and five months.

Anger at the sentence, as we said, is understandable, but we must remember that judges apply punishment within the bounds of sentencing guidelines.

Readers should also remember that under the Plea Negotiations and Agreement Act, accused individuals have the opportunity to offer a guilty plea in exchange for a lighter sentence. As such, someone who, claiming provocation, pleads guilty to manslaughter, after being charged with murder, cannot be sentenced based on the murder charge.

That was the case in this matter as Mr Bromfield had, in his caution statement, claimed that he was provoked by Ms Whyte. However, based on reports of what he said to the police after he was arrested, it appears to us that Mr Bromfield was driven by jealousy, which, as we have seen repeatedly throughout history, can trigger violent reactions.

In recent times we have seen such incidents in Jamaica, so much so that they have sparked debate about the provision in the Criminal Justice (Administration) (Amendment) Act that gives judges the option to slash up to 50 per cent off sentences for people who plead guilty to crimes.

That debate, we suspect, will resume each time there is public angst over a sentencing. And while such debates are healthy and should be encouraged, we believe that even greater focus should be given to the way we, as human beings, resolve disputes.

There are a number of avenues available to Jamaicans to handle disagreements, and we are encouraged by word from the Disputes Resolution Foundation that more people are seeing the benefits of alternative dispute resolution services offered by the Ministry of Justice.

People, we are told, are being trained as mediators and, eventually, will be able to help their fellow citizens reach amicable solutions to their problems.

That, we hold, is extremely important because some crimes, especially those arising from domestic disputes, can, we believe, be avoided with mediation.

It appears to us, though, that there needs to be a more aggressive and sustained public education campaign promoting the value of dispute resolution — a campaign that should also equip Jamaicans with knowledge of how to identify, very early in relationships, behaviour that could mushroom into violence.

If such a campaign saves just one life, it would be worth the effort.