Difference between sin and crime

An aspect of Mr Alleyne’s argument is that Caribbean homophobia has been a key factor in stymieing progress in reducing the AIDS rate. If this is so, it reflects gross ignorance on the part of the general population. After all, it has been almost 20 years since the rates of infection among heterosexuals passed the infection rates within the homosexual community. If, therefore, people still think AIDS is a homosexual disease, this certainly would undermine preventative measures.

In Trinidad and Tobago, the Health Ministry earlier this year announced that the rates of new infections and the rate of deaths from AIDS had been halved over the past three years, while the Caribbean Epidemiology Centre said that infection rates in the region had begun to level off. What this means is that now is the best time to re-double the efforts which have led to these results. And reducing discrimination and stigmatisation must be a key part of such efforts, if only for the reason that this will ensure that more people go for HIV tests.

The Government has launched a campaign aimed at this very end. It is notable, however, that the campaign studiously avoids any message which might imply that homosexuals should also not be discriminated against. All the ads feature apparently heterosexual persons saying, "Who are you to judge me?" This is useful, however, if it changes the perception that HIV is a disease that infects only homosexuals or drug users or extremely promiscuous persons.

But, since actions speak much louder than words, the Government undermines itself when, for example, it suppresses the Draft Gender Policy. It is now known that the part of the original Draft which called for legal reforms relating to homosexuality was one of two recommendations that caused concern in the Government. But, if the Equal Opportunities Act as presently constituted and laws against sodomy remain on our statute books, this means that a certain kind of discrimination is enshrined in the nation’s laws.

It is in this respect that Mr Alleyne called for dialogue and debate on the difference between sin and crime. We agree that this would be an exercise whose usefulness could extend beyond the issue of HIV. In all modern nations, what may be viewed as a sin (that is, a transgression against divine law) is not always a crime (defined as an act that constitutes an offence against an individual or the state).

Modern jurists have made this separation for several reasons. First, it is not always possible to judge sin, since certain sins — coveting thy neighbour’s house, for example — are impossible to prove.

Second, sin does not always have significant consequences — hence the reason a person cannot now be reasonably punished for working on the Sabbath. And a third and overriding reason is simply this — making sin a crime leads to greater wrongs against the individual and the body politic.

Of course, there are areas where sin and crime overlap — murder being the prime example.

But the lack of a clear distinction in relation to HIV policies, as Mr Alleyene has pointed out, may well have led to governments in effect causing needless deaths, simply because they have let stigmatisation and irrationality interfere with effective measures. If we are to become a developed nation, we will have to prevent this confusion in other areas and, in this regard, the debate recommended by Mr Alleyne will be essential.