 |
| A child cries beside the coffin of her father, who is alleged victim of drug-related killing. Photo by Daniel Berehulak/NYTimes |
I heard it again the other day.
Someone pointedly asked
somebody, who has expressed disgust over extra judicial killings, “Why are you
more concerned about the human rights of addicts and pushers than the human
rights of their victims?”
If you’re concerned over EJKs and have expressed
misgivings about how the government of Mr. Duterte is conducting the War on
Drugs, you might have been asked this question or have seen it posted on
Facebook and the question could have, for a minute, stopped you on your tracks.
Well, don’t be!
First of all, this question assumes a false
dichotomy making us choose between two perfectly valid and congruent propositions:
on the one hand, the human rights of the EJK victims, and on the other, the
human rights of victims of crimes committed by drug addicts and pushers.
Don’t accept the dichotomy! None exists because
these two propositions are not contradictory or mutually exclusive. We should
all be concerned about the human rights of all people. So, don’t let that
question trap you, just reject it as a fallacy!
Reject also the false assumption that by speaking
against EJKs you are less concerned about the human rights of victims. That
shouldn’t be necessarily true as I’m sure all of us would like the justice
system to work for all crime victims. Who wouldn’t want police officers,
prosecutors and judges to do their job and rid our communities of crimes and
criminals? We all do and those who would say otherwise are making an unwarranted presumption
against us.
“If what you say is true,” you might ask, “why do
many people speak of human rights only of EJK victims and remain silent on the
human rights of crime victims?”
This question is a close cousin of the first question
we discussed above. This second question represents a technique, called ‘red
herring,’ which tries to divert attention from the issue at hand by bringing up
a totally different matter that may not have real connection to the original
issue. The idea is to create diversion and confusion and avoid tackling head on
the matter at hand.
This diversionary technique is often used in
detective stories to create suspense and excitement on the final outcome of the
story. If you’re married or have ever been in a relationship, I’m sure that you’ve
employed this technique at least once to divert the discussion from a topic where
you are losing to your partner by raising a different issue. Come on, admit it!
If the issue at hand is EJKs, why bring up the
matter of the purported rights of the victims of druggies? Justice for crime
victims is an important issue, but it shouldn’t deflect attention from the
discussions on EJKs. In other words, even if druggies commit heinous crimes,
and only some and not all of them have done so, the question of attaining justice
for their victims is not a valid justification for the violation of the human
rights of the suspects or accused. Offenders are entitled to due process as
much as their victims are entitled to justice and compensation for the damages inflicted
on them. Each issue occupies a side of the same coin.
Secondly, it would be an unwarranted
generalization to speak of “victims of drug addicts and pushers” because not
all of them have committed heinous crimes or have victimized others to support,
or as a result of, their involvement in illegal drugs.
For sure, some drug addicts and pushers have
committed grave atrocities. But there is no data to show that ALL 6,000 plus
killed over the last six months on drug-related cases have actually committed heinous
crimes.
How many among the EJK victims were also wanted by
the police for murder, rape, robbery, or other atrocities? Many of these
victims did not have any standing warrants for any heinous crime.
Many people applaud the death of every EJK victim falsely
equating each death as the demise of a murderer, rapist, robber or other type
of criminals. Not all EJK victims were heinous criminals, and it is absurd to
lump them all up under this category.
In fact, the vast majority of EJK victims appeared
to be poor. They might have been involved in illegal drugs but they were not heinous
criminals. And this War on Drugs so far has been directed at poor communities. Have
you heard of EJKs in posh villages where many big drug laboratories had been discovered
in the past and many prominent residents had been arrested as drug pushers?
None!
But, again, you might ask, “Shouldn’t we be
concerned about the victims of crimes committed by druggies even if not all EJK
deaths represent the demise of heinous criminals?”
For sure, we should be concerned about victims of
heinous crimes whether or not committed by drug addicts or pushers!
We will not and cannot abandon the human rights of
victims. This is beyond question!
But here is what we should keep in mind when this
subject comes up.
The entire justice system (law enforcement,
prosecution, judicial trial and appeals, correction and penalties) is geared towards
the protection of the rights of victims, to compensate their loss and redress
grievances, and to penalize offenders.
We call this the Rule of Law, which is to say that
there is due process in getting criminals off the streets, making them pay for
the damages they have caused, and ensuring that convicted criminals serve
appropriate jail time and/or pay fines. This can be complicated at times. But
all this legal rigmarole is intended to achieve justice for crime victims. Justice
for crime victims is non-negotiable if we are to ensure quality of life and peace
and progress in our communities.
Justice for victims also arrests impunity. We want
all criminals brought to justice so that none of us is ever victimized by them again.
This is the ideal we pursue even if it is unrealistic to fully obtain.
But we want to make certain in rounding up
criminals who are causing harm in our neighborhoods that we do so with
appropriate legal safeguards against would-be despots, who would abuse power in
their hands by oppressing the weak and vulnerable. We also cannot allow mob
rule and street justice as we want to protect the rights of the poor and the powerless.
The manner by which we defend the rights of those in the margins of our
communities is the standard by which we measure our flourishing as society. The
Rule of Law and due process shield against the depredation of the weak by the
powerful among us.
While the Rule of Law seeks justice for crime
victims, such “justice” would be hollow if we don’t include under such rules the
fair treatment of suspects and accused by requiring proof of their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt by a corrupt-free justice system. The basic demand of fairness
is that not one party should act as the prosecutor, judge and executioner. The
convergence of these three different functions into one party embodies what is
so detestable about EJKs.
Unless we carefully adhere to the demand of
fairness, the law of the jungle would take over where the most powerful rules
without restraint and the rest carries the weight of oppression.
“Our justice system is broken,” you might say, “impunity
happens, and criminals get away with murder! Why don’t we just employ the law
of the jungle and kill all the druggies?”
If the justice system is broken, the solution is to
fix it and not to ditch the Rule of Law and due process. If our front door is
broken the correct solution is to fix it and not get rid of the door altogether
leaving the occupants more vulnerable and exposed.
The same is true if we applaud the killing of suspected
criminals without due process of law. The evil that we think we prevent by
killing criminals outside of the Rule of Law is merely replaced by the evil we
perpetuate in killing them. Such “justice” is a mirage and will not quench our
thirst for peace and safety.
The Rule of Law stops the cycle of violence that
threatens the existence of our society. And punctiliously adhering to it
despite the temptation to short-cut the process assures us of a more secure, just
and peaceful future. Without the Rule of Law, predators win hands down all the
time! When you’re tempted to ditch the Rule of Law, think again, as you might
need its protection someday.
The rights of victims and the rights of suspects
and accused from unjust punishment, including those that we consider the scum
of society, are like two legs that help us tread the path of a just and
progressive society. When anybody foolishly tries to cut-off one leg in favor
of the other, it cripples justice and no one can be really safe anymore.
