Photo by Raymond Gehman, National Geographic Collection. A hunter butchers a bull moose that will feed his family. Used here for educational, non-commercial purposes, free service by blog-use of image provided by and from www.allposters.com
What about the “rights of victims” ?
When a crime is committed, we are all victims; and while those who have lost their loved ones to violent crimes suffer the most, all of us are at peril of suffering the same fate as long as those criminals are not identified and not put away. Society, not just the kin of those who had been killed, has an interest in seeing that justice is done.
What does a “shoot-to-kill” “order” from the DOJ secretary (a feeble attempt at a Clint-Eastwood) of the robbers and murderers of the RCBC heist accomplish? As if. As if that kind of talk makes him look tough. If such was an order, even if implied; and was carried out or is being carried out, the person who gave the order can be prosecuted for murder as a principal by inducement. At the very least, it is a signal or message from the DOJ secretary that he would look the other way when the police “RCBC Task Force” deems it fit to shoot at suspects on sight.
What does shooting and killing of suspected members of criminal syndicates accomplish? As everyone knows, it is illegal and punished as murder. But what about the “rights of victims” to see that justice is done?
Shooting of the criminal suspects will not necessarily lead you to the real criminals and will certainly not lead you to the mastermind, their accomplices, their accessories. How does it serve the “rights of victims” if those who are responsible for the crime are never identified? How does it serve the “rights of victims” if more bodies pile up, and we’ll never know who they really were or what they did? What does it serve the rights of victims if we cannot get the masterminds, accomplices, and accessories such as: those who gave the RCBC robbers information on the amount of money in the bank; those who gave them information on the busted security cameras and the busted alarm system; those who gave them information on the number of security guards, their weapons, number of employees, on the locks, etc. Those who conducted surveillance and acted as lookout. Those who provided them with cars, high-powered firearms, safehouses, communication facilities, food, logistics. Those who hid the money and laundered/ will launder it.
But what about if you were certain that they were the criminals who killed your loved ones? Dapat nga silang barilin! (they should really be shot!), said one radio commentator. As if. As if that kind of talk makes one seem indignant enough. If we do away with courts, let’s all wear firearms and shoot it out everyday. We shoot them, they shoot our children, we shoot their children and spouses, they shoot all our next of kin. And now, we don’t even need to be hypothetical because even the police said those killed in the so-called “shoot-out” were not related to the RCBC bank heist and murders.
In the minds of the police, there is method in their madness: by killing suspected gang members, they are rattling whatever criminal gangs they could get their hands on so that one group would snitch on the other group just to get the heat off them; or, the police by rattling the criminal gangs, could get some chatter and movements that they could watch and trace.
As of this writing, the police have disclosed that they were on the verge of identifying the RCBC robbers-murderers, and that two of the suspects are “men-in-uniform”, but without identifying the unit.
Really? Being based on “intel reports” and later on, “forced confessions” of “suspects” (statements made under torture) how much of that evidence would be admissible in court?
The “rights of victims” are violated twice over when the real criminals walk free; we all become victims when we encourage amd tolerate summary executions as if it were a hallmark of heroism or courage; and all of us are present and future victims of the DOJ secretary’s “shoot-to-kill” “order”.
