THE final point made in the article on police brutality in Thursday's Herald quotes Jan Stemmett, of the Law Society: "Many police officers have been killed in performing their work...this may be symptomatic of serious post-traumatic stress within the police" ("Increase in police brutality slammed"). I agree.
SAPS has a very difficult and dangerous job, and I certainly would not like to be a police officer risking my life. Nor would I like to be without income living in a township.
If I and my family were hungry, I would not be deterred from breaking the law by one of the most lenient constitutions in existence or by a justice system which bends over backwards to protect the rights of the criminal, by, among other things, rendering evidence of previous convictions "inadmissible" and by giving very short prison sentences because the prisons are full.
In any case concern over where the next meal comes from is eliminated in prison (nobody dies in prison from malnutrition).
How frustrating must it be for police officers, who are risking their lives, to see criminals set free due to legal loopholes, or evidence collecting not being 100% foolproof.
What would deter me from committing crime is the process of me passing though SAPS hands – risking being kicked to death!
This "rough justice" is what is keeping you and me safe in our leafy suburbs.
We are all partly responsible. When I say "all" I mean those with substantial incomes.
Bottom line: the police are too rough because the law is too soft.
J Hall, Jeffreys Bay
Letters
| Letters
