As incredible as it sounds there are, in fact, persons who feel that jealous rage and the accompanying violence is really confirmation of a spouse's love and devotion. Shameful as it seem, I have seen men preening when their wives and lovers have had violent confrontations. I suppose these men feel validated as studs when women are fighting to protect their relationship with them.
Local reports about a man gouging out his lover's eyes in a fit of jealous rage have started an impassioned debate about homosexual violence. But more than that, the incident has demonstrated that domestic violence is not limited to heterosexual relationships. What was often shrouded in secret is now in the open.
The incident also raised questions about infidelity and how spurned lovers go about avenging wounded pride. For many years we have heard about the 'crime of passion' defence which is used to mitigate criminal acts against unfaithful partners. In other words, the partner in this case could argue: "I gouged out your eyes but it was your fault; you made me do it." I do not want to comment too much on the case since it is sub judice at this time. However, what I want to comment on is the report that the victim is no longer interested in pursuing the case against the person who has condemned him to life without sight.
Intervention
Over many years of reporting on court proceedings, I have encountered victims appearing before a magistrate to say they were no longer interested in proceeding with this or that matter. These interventions are common in fraud cases where the victim is more anxious to collect from an accused, if he is prepared to make restitution. The victim's argument goes something like this: "when the accused person goes to prison I get no direct benefit. However, if he is left on the streets he may be able to repay the money". The fact is many embezzlers who work for higher profile institutions have been quietly dismissed and their only punishment is the denial of a favourable reference. The result is that they move effortlessly through many other organisations, perpetuating fraud and are never punished. They never stop committing fraud; they simply become more efficient at their craft. These people have been given a pass and allowed to sneer at the justice system.
Criminal processes are directed toward justice as an aspect of society's common good. And as such, crimes should be punished on the basis of what is good to prevent chaos and anarchy in society. It is the magistrate's duty to point out that the system of laws and consequences outweighs any person's reluctance to appear in court.
Embarrassment
Many crimes of incest go unpunished because of this reluctance to press charges, often because of fear of embarrassment. Usually relatives of the victim come together and quash the case and it becomes their "dirty little secret" and grandma will ensure that the teenagers are never left alone in a room with the lecherous uncle. It is understandable that rape victims are sometimes reluctant to report the crime because they do not want to relive a brutal experience. So the rapist is also given a pass and allowed to continue to satisfy his brutal lust.
Recently, the world watched the unfolding of the case of Barbados superstar Rihanna who was battered by her celebrity boyfriend Chris Brown. She did not want to press charges and the authorities made it clear that whether or not she cooperated, they were going about gathering evidence with a view to putting him before a judge to answer for his crime. As we now know, the police developed a criminal case. Rihanna was not called and Brown was taken before the courts where he pleaded guilty to a minor charge.
The police would be justified in pointing out the efforts they have had to make to bring a case to trial, only to be told that the victim does not want to proceed. It is an obvious waste of judicial resources and perhaps the time has come to deal harshly with those who waste the court's time.
Dennie Quill is a veteran journalist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com