ARE WE CIVILISED?
Neil de Jesus Rangel, Sao Estevao.

THE ONLY ARGUMENT and the only convincing one against the death penalty is a moral and human one. The death penalty is but an expression of intellectual, moral and human bankruptcy. While the crime can in no way be condoned and no form of justice can ever be done to the victim of the grieving relatives- the death penalty can in no way be called a form of justice.

Why should civilized society kill a criminal to avenge a killing by the criminal? Eye for an eye, life for a life - what does the death penalty achieve? Nothing, but another crime for a crime. How can the death penalty do justice? It is a form of revenge and barbarism - the product of a sub-human, animal mentality. I am sorry to say this, but those who advocate the death penalty in a civilized society can hardly call themselves human, let alone civilized. We do not need to lower our dignity to that or less than the level of violent beasts. We are called human, not beast.

The issue is not how to kill, but why not to kill. The gift of life is the greatest gift of all for those who appreciate it. Just because a criminal did not appreciate this at one time, is no reason to take his/her life. Are we blinded by our animal and base instincts of revenge? Do we lack a human conscience that we cannot forgive?

Forgiveness and mercy are among the greatest of human qualities that set us apart from lower animals. Just because the accused has the blood of an innocent on his hands, do we also need to have the blood of the accused on our hands, souls and collective conscience? We are not asking for the criminal to be set free at any time. The life sentence is more than enough. It fully serves the ends of human justice in such cases.

The President has badly erred in declining to grant a pardon. It is extremely cruel to keep a criminal languishing in jail for a decade and then send him/her to the gallows. That the accused faces the death penalty on the eve of Independence Day is another tragedy. A pardon would have set the stage for the abolition of the death penalty in our country. Unfortunately, it seems that it will be quite some time before we finally join the league of civilized countries that have long abolished this cruel and barbaric form of sub-human justice.

COASTAL VIOLATIONS
James Pereira, Utorda.

OVER THE LAST few days there has been a lot of hue and cry about the demolitions that were carried out by the Dy. Collector along with the GCZMA Authorities. It is amazing that though there are a lot of gross violations of the Goa Coastal Zone and Environment Act the violators that are targeted are locals and small time violators sometimes due to their political colors or because of their inability to pull the right strings. While the violations of our politicians are protected (take the recent case at Zug Mobor).

Outsiders are allowed to build holiday homes and hotels by bending the rules. Even today there are so many structures being built within the 200 metres No Construction Zone. The Authorities that are supposed to protect our fragile coast line have, many times for monetary gains, helped in aiding and abetting these illegal activities. Thank God for the Judiciary. If not for its vibrant presence and actions our coast line would have by now become a concrete jungle.

SHACK ALLOTMENT
Lawry Fernandes. Via Email

MATHANY SALDANHA is currently busy drafting the new policy for the allocation of shacks. He has been meeting over the last few days with certain senior shack owners and members of the Goa Shack Owners Association.

The senior shack owners are asking the Tourism Minister that 80% of the shacks should be allotted to persons who had put up shacks previously. Senior shack owners with three years experience are asking to automatically qualify and choose the prime spots. If this deal is implemented, every senior shack owner is allegedly willing to pay the Tourism Minister Rs. 40,000 underhand.

Assuming there are 100 persons with three years experience, Mathany stands to collect Rs.40,00,000. Previously everybody had to go through the lottery system which was good.

Last year, the Director of Tourism had allegedly collected Rs.20,000 each for passing this legislation. With this move the senior shack owners not only get an allotment for the shack but they are also given a chance to choose the prime spots or the so called number one spots on the beach. This is ridiculous. This does not give any chance to the new shack owners.

HELMETS SAVE LIFE
Ubaldo D’Souza, Dona Paula.

THE HELMET ISSUE issue is doing a merry-go-round with the authorities and two-wheeler riders going for each other without any resolution. Parrikar’s instructions to the police to soft pedal the issue, after it was started with gusto, is embarrassing.

Accidents are caused by bad and potholed roads leading to sudden swerving, bad lighting, cattle lunging on roads, total ignorance of traffic regulations by the great majority of drivers and riders in Goa and, last but not least, the traffic police’s indifference to the implementation of traffic discipline.

The high level of aggressiveness and confrontationist attitude of the rider and driver in Goa as well as reckless speeding compounds the situation into an unpalatable one. It is not until the concerned authorities have carried out their responsibilities that they can go after the drivers and riders.

As for the two-wheeler riders, they must know that all over the world where there are dream roads, scientific lighting etc, riding licenses are got by passing oral and written examinations and not by passing currency notes and through favours, the use of a helmet is mandatory.

This is evidence of the fact that a helmet is meant to save lives, no matter what the cause of the accident. Accidents will not stop after Goa gets good roads, good lighting and the elimination of stray cattle, there are still traffic regulations that one has to follow.

Insurance companies who exclude certain pre-existing diseases from insurance cover also exclude the use of vehicles for other than normal transport. They might force the issue of helmets by restricting or excluding insurance compensation to victims of head injuries resulting from the non-use of helmets.

Back