misuse of legal terms--- a phenomenon in haitian politics!!!

ever since my first participation in politics-dominated forum relating to haiti, I have found a peculiar misuse of vocabulary and misunderstanding of rules among our fellow commentators; and one of the most vulgarized, and abused term is "impunity".

what is impunity? and what it is not?

the state can be said to encourage impunity if the following criteria are present:

1) charges and complaints have been formally brought against certain individuals, but the state ignores them, either by incompetence or deliberate supression of justice.

2) the state interferes with an alleged victim's or his legal representative's ability to gather and present evidences in a court of law against certain individuals.

3) the state reverses convictions in a case of a prisoner that have been handed down in a court of law after irrefutable evidences have previously corroborated his guilt.

now given these very simple criteria, let's analyze whether the state has encouraged impunity in the case of SAMBA BOUKMAN.
this method that we are applying is called "the socratic method" of inquiry.

Samba was arrested on charges of carrying illegal weapons, nothing more, nothing less. If carrying illegal weapons had been ground enough for one's removal from competing or being nominated from any public office, then Danny toussaint( was once arrested by minustha for carrying illegal weapons), and guy phillipe (led a rebellion with illegal weapons since the weapons were not registered with the administrative police) would have been prohibited from entering the presidential race. it is worth noting that does mean that i am condoning his decision to carry illegal weapons, but in a country where anything can happen, and anybody can be victimized, one can easily that not all individuals who carry illegal weapons are carrying them for criminal purposes, it may well be " self-defense"; again, that does not mean that such was necessarily the case with Samba bookman.

is the first criterion met in the case of Samba boukman?

to determine that, one simply needs to know whether any alleged victims have formally brought charges against samba?
as of now, no alleged victims or their families have reportedly brought formal charges against samba---- the only people implicating samba in many crimes are the media and Mr. Esperance; since there have been no formal charges brought against samba, then it cannot be reasonably said that the state has ignored charges formally brought agaisnt him.
in other words, the first criterion is not present.

is the second criterion present in the case of Samba?

to determine that, one simply needs to check the records of complaints from alleged victims or/and their legal representatives in which they have claimed that the state is systematically impeding their investigation or their pursuit of the case.
As of now, no such denounciations of cover-up or intimidations have been made against the state by any alleged victims of samba bookman. No individuals have been pressured from not coming foward, and that not even Mr. have been able to prove that such systematic intimidations have occurred.
in other words, the second criterion is not present in the case of samba bookman.

3) is the third criterion present in the case of samba bookman?
when samba bookman was arrested, he was arrested during the administration of Latortue; and he was also released under the same administration. since he was not convicted of a crime in a court of law, his liberation under that same administration cannot be said to be a reversal of a previous conviction justly handed down by a judge; and since, the man was already freed when the administration of preval came to power, preval's administration cannot be reasonably said to have reversed a previous conviction on suspicious grounds.
in other words, the third criterion is not present in the case of samba bookman.
in conclusion, the state under the administration of preval, as it is viewed from the particular case of samba bookman, cannot reasonably be accused of encouraging "IMPUNITY".

Now, after having proved that the legal grounds for samba's exclusion is illegitimate as it is based on an apparent misunderstanding of the word " IMPUNITY", let's determine whether his inclusion in the commission is warranted.

1) if it is assumed as the Gnbists tend to assume that the majority of the illegal guns is concentrated in the areas who are overwhelmingly pro-aristid, then the inclusion of Samba bookman in the disarmament commision will make a lot sense. why?
because as a very popular pro-aristid activist, samba bookman can reasonable be assumed to have a certain level influence among other fellow pro-aristid who may look up to him as a leader.

2) if it is assumed that the majority of gun-related victims are to be found in pro-aristid areas as the "lavalasyen" tend to argue, then the inclusion of bookman will still make sense. why?
because his popularity and the trust that he inspires among fellow pro-aristid individuals can be used to mobilize them as to form credible law-abiding vigilentes against violence in their community.

as we have just seen, this inclusion makes a lot sense while its exclusion is definitely legally goundless, if not morally baseless.