What! Crime not so bad in Trinidad and Tobago!
‘Crime Not So Bad In Trinidad and Tobago’
‘Readers were left in awe and wonder as the former editor of the Guardian and the current editor
battled in the pages of the St Vincent Street newspaper over the Chief Justice’s recent comments
on the country’s crime situation.
Jones P.Madeira, who was editor in the mid-1990s and is now the Chief Justice’s mouthpiece as
Court Protocol and Information Manager, is insisting that the Guardian got it wrong last week
with its startling headline”CJ:Crime Not So Bad”.
Madeira laments that the reporter compounded the matter in the very first paragraph of the front
page story.
Not so counters brash young editor Anthony Wilson and proceeds to give his former mentor a
grammar lesson regarding nouns, pronouns, parsing, noun clauses and noun phrases.Whew!
The trouble is that the Chief Justice’s statements do appear to be ambiguous. Whether he was
misquoted or he misspoke is,therefore, purely a matter of interpretation.
What is your opinion?
Jones P. Madeira attacks the Guardian
I refer to your February 3 edition carrying the banner headline, “CJ: Crime not
so bad,” and also the first paragraph of the related story written by Raphael
John-Lall on page 3 of the said publication, which read: “The crime problem in
Trinidad and Tobago is not as bad as many people make it out to be, says Chief
Justice Ivor Archie.”
Further to the telephone discussions we have had on this issue, I wish to
reinforce the point I made that in his address to the luncheon of the T&T
Chamber of Industry and Commerce on February 2, the Chief Justice never made the
statement attributed to him in the Guardian’s headline and in your reporter’s
more detailed account. What the Chief Justice said, as borne out in transcripts
of his address, was the danger everyone is made to feel from media reports about
crime is not as bad sometimes as we think it is, not that crime is not so bad,
as portrayed in the Guardian’s headline and also in Lall’s report. The Chief
Justice went on to suggest that because of the smallness of our society and
people’s familiarity with others affected by crime, there is a resulting fear
that is exploited by some to intimidate and to pervert the course of
justice.Surely, the judiciary of the Republic of T&T will be one of the arms of
the State that would be most aware of the extent of crime in all of its
manifestations in the country. It is instructive that from their published
accounts, no other media house, print nor electronic, which covered the Chief
Justice’s address, came away with the skewed impression conveyed in the
Guardian’s coverage. These other media houses all had similar headlines relating
to the threat facing judicial officers, jurors and witnesses by some in society
who wished to capitalise on that fear. Even the Guardian on its front page
strap, and the headline to the detailed account, was similar to the other media.
For further clarification, the following is a transcript of the portion of the
address by the Chief Justice most relevant to the Guardian’s headline and Lall’s
report: “Finally, and I am going to finish shortly, I would like to say
something about security. This is uppermost in the minds of most citizens in
this country, and there is a sense—especially when we look at the print and
electronic media—a sense that we are in danger. Personally, I don’t think it is
as bad sometimes as we think it is, but because we are a small country, there is
no anonymity to crime. If we have not been victims of crime, somebody we know,
some member of our family, has been a victim of crime, and because of that,
there are those in our society who would seek to subvert the administration of
justice by fear and intimidation, either of witnesses, jurors or judicial
officers. Of course it is axiomatic that those who take part in the criminal
justice process must do so without fear or favour, and this requires the
preservation of an environment where one can feel secure.” We are quite
disappointed naturally by the Guardian’s inaccurate treatment of the address by
the Chief Justice, and also with sections of the electronic media who chose the
unfortunate and inaccurate Guardian headline and account over all others as the
basis for further public discussion of the issue, thereby misrepresenting the
Chief Justice further to the national community. We propose no prolongation of
this matter either with the Guardian newspaper or other sections of the media,
save to suggest that adherence to the canons of this noble profession of
journalism, which include the quest for accuracy, fairness, balance and
objectivity, will minimise occurrences of this kind.
Jones P Madeira
Court Protocol and
Information Manager
There was no consensus says the Editor
The first point to be made is that “it” is a pronoun—a word that is meant to
replace or stand in for a noun.The noun that a pronoun replaces is referred to
as its antecedent. Pronouns must agree with the nouns they replace in number
(either singular or plural), in case (whether referring to the subject, object
or possessive) and in gender. For communication to be clear, a pronoun must
refer to a specific antecedent and should be placed close to its antecedent for
clarity. If not, ambiguity or confusion may result.
When a pronoun could possibly refer to more than one antecedent, the grammar
books advise that the pronoun should be replaced or the sentence rewritten to
ensure clarity.
This is what the Chief Justice said:
“…I would like to say something about security. This is uppermost in the minds
of most citizens in this country, and there is a sense —especially when we look
at the print and electronic media—a sense that we are in danger. Personally, I
don’t think it is as bad sometimes as we think it is, but because we are a small
country, there is no anonymity to crime…”
In parsing the comments of the Chief Justice, one must ask what noun, noun
clause or noun phrase was the “it” in the third sentence meant to replace. The
noun in the second sentence closest to the “it” is “danger” and the noun clause
closest is “a sense that we are in danger.”
The “it” in the third sentence, therefore, could refer either to “danger” or “a
sense that we are in danger.”
If the “it” in the third sentence refers to “danger” or “a sense that we are in
danger,” are we to understand the sentence as follows?
a) Personally, I don’t think dan-ger is as bad sometimes as we think it is, but
because we are a small country, there is no anonymity to crime.
Or
b) Personally, I don’t think a sense that we are in danger is as bad as we think
it is, but because we are a small country, there is no anonymity to crime.
Following receipt of the letter from the judiciary, carried in full above, the
Chief Justice’s comments were sent to four language experts, both here and
abroad, who were asked what they thought the first “it” in the third sentence of
the paragraph of the excerpt from the Chief Justice’s speech referred.
There was no consensus.
One interpretation was that the Chief Justice was saying: “The danger we sense
is not as bad as we feel it is” and that the danger refers to the insecurity
citizens feel because of the level of crime. Another expert interpreted the
Chief Justice as saying: “Personally, I don’t think this perceived danger is as
immediate or life-threatening as we sometimes think it (meaning the danger) is,
but because we are a small country, there is no anonymity to crime.” Two of the
four felt that the first “it” referred to crime with one describing the sentence
as “muddled.” The controversial sentence, at the very least, was ambiguous and
opened the door to being misconstrued. The test of the ambiguity of the sentence
is that if the Chief Justice had to write the words that he spoke, he certainly
would replace the first “it” with the antecedent noun he had in his mind. That
being said, the Guardian is deeply and sincerely apologetic to the Chief Justice
if we misinterpreted his words.
Chief Justice Ivor Archie