We’re doing just fine. Everything’s top-notch. Even our justice system is soaring.
A man of 82 years was sentenced to two and a half years in prison because he alone faced the scourge of the entire Cypriot society—the theft of cables, a plague that neither the police forces nor the Electricity Authority of Cyprus (EAC) can tackle.
The EAC recently had tens of meters of cables stolen after several poles were cut down in the mountains of Agios Mamas.
So, the 82-year-old sent a message to the cable thieves that they could not continue this scourge unhindered.
He shot with his hunting rifle and wounded the brazen thief, who for the second time entered his yard in Alassa, cut the power, and stole the cables—for the second time, I repeat.
The first time, he did not shoot. He calmly paid an electrician and restored power to his house. The second time, when the electricity was cut off, he went outside with his hunting rifle. How else was the man supposed to react, with an olive branch?
He saw the thief in his yard wrapping the cables. He shouted at him and asked what he was doing, but there was neither voice nor hearing. Well, doesn’t a person have the right to react when, for the second time, he has to spend his pension to restore electricity to his house? He raised his gun and fired. This is called self-defence. Protecting his property. The sacred and inviolable sanctuary of his home.
Truth be told, if I were home when someone was stealing the catalytic converter from my car, I might have come out with my hunting rifle. Not to kill, but to have something in my hands for security and to intimidate, hoping to save my property.
My neighbour saw them and called the Police. But, by the time the officer arrived, the thieves had lifted the car, removed the catalytic converter, and vanished. What was the 82-year-old supposed to do? Call the Police? And what good did it do when he called the first time?
However, our impeccable judges think differently. There are mitigating factors, they say, but the court must not send the wrong messages to potential offenders, and it would not serve the needs of the Law.
The potential offender is the elderly man, not the thief. The “wrong message” to the thieves doesn’t matter. Because it is to them that the court’s message is directed, not to the honest citizens. They send a clear message that thieves can enter people’s homes and snatch cables without worrying that they might encounter a homeowner with a hunting rifle.
I know, I know, citizens should not be encouraged to take the law into their own hands. It’s dangerous to confront thieves with or without a weapon because they might also have a weapon, and you risk your life.
Okay, that’s fair.
But, after all is said and done, why should an 82-year-old man go to prison for two and a half years? To protect society from the dangerous gunman? They could have at least given him a suspended sentence.
Imagine that the Criminal Court considered, as mitigating factors, his immediate admission, his cooperation with the Authorities, his genuine remorse, his clean criminal record, his age, and all the health problems he faces.
They took all these into account and sent him to the Central Prison with murderers and mafia bosses. If we had a penal colony, they would have sent him there.
Then, there are quite a few lawyers criticising President Christodoulides’ intervention with the RIK to avoid an appeal in Eudokia Loizou’s case after 17 years of torture. He has no jurisdiction to intervene, they say.
Indeed.
But there are cases where the President’s intervention is necessary. Because someone needs to correct the absurdities and injustices. Life is not all “letter of the law”. Like with the 82-year-old.
Yes, the President should intervene and grant clemency, so he doesn’t spend even one day in prison. Not one day.
Read more:
