ON Tuesday May 25, as I perused the Guyana Times, an article entitled, “Desperate teenage dad snatched gold band,” grabbed my attention. A 16-year old male charged with theft, pleaded guilty with an explanation and an appeal for leniency.

His explanation was that of need – a need that should be afforded to every citizen by the country of their birth, through policies that care for the less fortunate, the weak, the old, the young and the disabled; in short, policies that address and respond to the basic needs of its populace.

In the absence of such policies, people are left to fend for themselves irrespective of their condition, and preparedness or lack thereof, sometimes even without the assistance/support of their family, relatives and friends.

Guyanese to a large extent have lost that “loving feeling,” and the present coagulant of the blood of the society is materialism and its accumulation.

Unwanted disruptions to their busy schedule, especially by strangers seeking help, of any kind, are rejected or dismissed, sometimes in the vilest and inhumane manner, causing public embarrassment and personal injury to any who dare to approach such accomplished persons.

They are characterised and pre-judged as “junkies” who need a ‘high’, a drunkie who wants an “eye-opener” or “wash-down” as appropriate or a laggard for not finding work.

In (their) Ivory Towers, we (they) sit and judge less fortunate individuals without a word of inquiry as to their request.

The young male adult, in his explanation, stated reasons of unemployment, mounting unpaid bills and a 16-month baby and by extension, the baby’s mother to feed.

The learned chief magistrate in her infinite wisdom imposed a $40,000 fine and 12 months if fine cannot be paid. This judgment was explained as being a reduced one from the statutory $60,000 or 18 months confinement. Was this just or correctional? I humbly submit it was neither.

With a little thought, care, compassion and ingenuity, the respected magistrate could have set in motion the wheels of circumstances that may have, in addition to saving his life and freedom, changed his fortunes.

As a lay man, my understanding of the “law” and its associated agencies is to be remedial and corrective as well as punitive.

Would madam chief magistrate please consider the spirit of the law and the logistics of its implementation in her persistent refusal of bail for bailable offences and punitive judgments?