Global Unrest in the 21st. Century

Theory: Rational Choice

Developed by: Gary Becker (1968) -- "Applied economic principles, formalizing criminal behavior as a rational choice to maximize utility, considering costs (punishment) and benefits (gains)".

Why is there Global unrest?

Could this all be interpreted as "Rational Choice"?

What is "Sheep, or Herd Mentality"?

Gustave Le Bon is a 19th. century theorist on Crowd/Herd Mentality..

Gustave Le Bon: "Known for his 1895 work The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, the French social psychologist is considered a foundational figure who argued that individuals in a crowd adopt a "group mind" that suppresses individual judgment."

Basically, when you are in a group... you tend to loose your own individuality, or voice.. your actions are more about pleasing and living up to the group philosophy/ideals/goals

Google says: "Sheep mentality, or herd mentality, describes the tendency for individuals to mimic the behaviors, thoughts, and emotions of a larger group, often abandoning personal judgment for conformity, driven by a primal need to belong, fear of being alone, or a shared sense of safety within the group, leading to actions like panic buying or following trends without critical thought".

An Example of a Negative Group Setting

If you find yourself in a situation where you are storming a government building... please STOP!

You just crossed an invisible line... Another example is rioting in Iran.. When you are involved in any group, do set guidelines... so you can stop yourself in time!

Groups can have very positive outcomes... an example here is at work, working towards a healthy purpose... providing services that can always be trusted... always know when to stop if these goals change...

Do you like to critically analyze ideas, or do you simply look at what others are doing and follow the pack? Now you know if you have Crowd/Herd/Sheep mentality...

International countries have become part of the global daily news?

What's happening in countries like the: UK, Australia, parts of the USA, Venezuela (for more than a decade), Iran, Gaza, the West Bank, Russia, Ukraine (War) and more!

Courtesy Google images

Caribbean:

Micro level of crimes takes place in our homes, our own backyard, folks get targeted, because they have thriving fruits and vegetables in their yard. Your neighbor visits you today, and tonight things are stolen... so you wake up the next morning and notice what was here yesterday is no longer here today.

People then start locking their doors, having celebrations, or religious event alone, or only with immediate family already in their household. You walk down the streets and things have changed... this is now a gated community!

Caribbean people traditionally live in unity everyone know everyone in their community... sharing and caring for one another... today things have changed..

Community Policing:

Does Community Policing Help with Micro level crimes? Do Community Policing show accountability? No crimes investigated does Not mean there were no crimes... more than likely crimes reported fell on deaf ears.. More of a lackadaisical attitude, police officers more fearful of criminals than maintaining responsibility and keeping a clean neighborhood. As the saying goes... If you can't do your job, should you be there? Something to think about.. don't become the problem.

Macro level of crimes... where perpetrators engages in criminal "Behaviors" with expectation of profiteering.... Rational Choice where they balance profits with punishment..

Bad actor and players working in institutions taint the entire conduct of those institutions. Places of business, workplace environment and such, that we trust are failing us.... because a few weighed the benefits of committing crimes without getting caught. No penalty, because those that refuse to follow said rules get punished, and coerced, or manipulated to adapt, whilst perpetrators remain fearless.. Such societies engage in barbaric behaviors against each other, whilst authorities responsible for holding perpetrators accountable... choose to aid and abet criminal activities!

Micro and Macro level of crimes discussed here are typical for Trinidad and Tobago; twin island, South American countries, governed by the same political entity.

Image courtesy Getty

In Trinidad and Tobago (T&T), a State of Emergency (SoE), made international headlines:

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/12/30/americas/state-of-emergency-trinidad-and-tobago-intl-latam

The former Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Dr. Keith Rowley's government issued the SoE in December, 2024, and lost the General Elections in T&T, in 2025.

Now the current Prime Minister of T&T, The Honorable Kamla Persad-Bissessar, is under attack and fears for her livelihood.. Madam Prime Minister and her colleagues has continued the previous government stance against crime in T&T, not only that, but the present government is working closely with US President Trump, and US allies. If anyone is mistaken here... please take another look.. the US has intel on crime and international corruption... no country is immune... All one needs to do is look at the cascading effect.

In Nursing the "Cascading Effect" refers to a sort of evolution where one may have perfect health one day... but different triggers bring about subtle and dynamic change; where health is no longer a reliable outcome.. In Nursing we observe signs and symptoms. So to in criminal behaviors we observe impact of individual, environmental and institutional, or systemic social anomalies.

Rational Choice Theory -- Is it rational choice if you are repeatedly coerced by: partners, family, community, institutions that fail us?

Can we solve crime by building better environment? Can we truly live like the human family without jealousy, or envy of our neighbors?

Have you heard of "Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design"?

Our environment is shaped by those people in the social environment... hence they all have the power to do better.. to not target their neighbours!

I built WordPress designs in about 2016 & 2017, "Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design" during Degree studies at Humber Polytechnique in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Please see link: https://joysocietypublication.wordpress.com/

Life as a kid growing up in Trinidad and life as a mature adult in Trinidad?

* In our community in South Trinidad, we Never had water, rain and pond water, were more accessible than the public water system (embarrassing).

* Neighbours lived like family

* About 3 month of the year were designated to religious events

* Schools maintained discipline, teachers were the pillar of society

* We had no Police Stationed in the Community

* The main Hospital was San-Fernando General

* No home theft

* Neighbours didn't steal dirt, water, electricity, clothes of the line, do sacrifice on your land, put food on your land, plant parasite on your land, damage fruit trees, vandalize property overnight... and much more!

* Community members looked out for one another..

TODAY:

* We still have poor supply of water in Barrackpore, Trinidad - I remained in contact with Water and Sewage Authority in 2024, but gave up, because of a lack of progress..

* Truck born water sold to businesses (influencing sales not supply)

* Rain is 100% reliable... so why pay for water we don't get?

* Neighbors are distant always watching, never intervening..

* Living in this region means no police intervention and the people say they seek their own justice

* Celebrations and religious events are done secretly... mostly no invitations

* Schools are failing communities... children are unmanageable, teachers afraid to go to work

* Kids do not get disciplined in schools

* Illiteracy rates are increasing

* Community Policing available... but they do not respond, or investigate criminal behaviours.

* The main hospital is still San-Fernando

* Theft is rampant.... everyone in the community are targets... you have something... they will come at night and take it..

* Everything on your land is possible reason for theft... folks canvas neighbourhoods to find targets.

* The close netted community is now a community afraid of being targeted... distant... more gated!

Where did we go wrong? Perhaps it's all linked to politics!

Politicians want you to believe that voting choices can influence negative/possitive factors..

Who are the main players in Corruption?

We have: Politicians----Institutions-----such as: Lawyers, Courts, Police, Judges, Schools, Supply Chains and such..

What happens when one institution crumbles?

Lets look at Lawyers:

Attorneys are under the supervision of the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT)

LATT design the professional Standards of Conduct and implement disciplinary measures to ensure that citizens can have a reliable system... Right?

LATT constantly takes heat for managing attorneys under a system described as less than reputable.

In the News: LATT attacked for membership fees:

https://newsday.co.tt/2025/02/06/law-association-faces-dispute-over-fees-spending/

LATT in the News: For questioning how, and why Ronnie Boodoosingh got the post of Chief Justice?

If anyone understands the new Chief Justice it would be superiors at the LATT... but when they ask questions those questions are shut down!

Example Facebook Post:

FACT

The Trinidad and Tobago Law Association (LATT) has existed since, 1986, and utilizes the "Legal Profession Act" of 1986 to regulate attorneys conduct.

Did you know the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago, has been overseeing professional conduct by regulating attorneys behaviors; which has repeatedly come under scrutiny... LATT has faced public anger over not doing enough to regulate the system with checks and balances.

MEDIA PUBLICATION

Did you know that the LATT, began investigating 3 attorneys in 2020, pertaining to a complaint... and did you also know that in April 2024, those attorneys were deemed to have violated the standards regarding the Code of Ethics, as per the Legal Profession Act (1986), Schedule 3?

Now did you also know that, those same 3 attorneys reprimanded by the LATT, in April 2024, launched an appeal with the High Court... That's Right!

What is even more confusing is that this appeal launched in the High Court for 3 disgraced attorneys, was led by almost 1 dozen attorneys... That's right... each one of those disgraced attorney needed 2-to-3 attorneys to represent their interest.

Actual Legal Representations for these disgraced attorneys were: Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, Kiel Taklalsingh, Stefan Ramkissoon, Nicholas Sant, Leon Kalicharan, Rajiv Rickhi, Ria Ramoutar, and Shveta Parasram.

You might ask who presided over their case....? Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh and 2 of his colleagues.. sat in judgement of those 3 disgraced attorneys... those attorneys came under fierce attack from their own client... for wrongfully issuing a "Consent Order" and utilizing it without his permission..

Is this unethical conduct? After almost 4 years the LATT, believed this amounted to unethical conduct!

Attorneys *Dinesh Rambally, Karina Singh and Desiree Sankar* were all reprimanded..

Now what happened in the Appeals Court under the New Chief Justice, the honorable Ronnie Voodoosingh?

On Dec. 18th., 2025, the LATT, decision was overturned by Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh and 2 of his colleagues.

Here's an Ethical Dilema:

* The Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT), "Reprimanded" a group of attorneys for "Misconduct".

However, those attorneys file an Appeal to the LATT decision in the High Court and named the original complainant, that brought the complaint to the LATT, as the Defendant!

Incidentally, the appeal launched in the High Court, against M.D, the Defendant that was either Not served, or had enough of the run-around.

There were No Defendant in the challenge to overturn a decision rendered by the LATT.

Is this Lawful?

The complainant did Not render the decision to "Reprimand" those attorneys for Misconduct....

How can an appeal of the LATT, decision be overturned in the High Court> Knowingly, knowing the LATT was Not a party, or a named Defendant

Those attorneys would need to launch an open challenge to the LATT's decision in the High Court, for any decision by the LATT to be overturned!

Does the Public have Cause for Alarm?

If a decision from the LATT can so easily be overturned...even when the LATT is Not a party, a named Defendant. Why then do Trinidad and Tobago even conduct oversight for those attorneys freely practicing and ignoring the laws of the country... and never mind ethics... Ethics what?

LATT standards diminished with the reading of this judgement, regardless the LATT has been operational for almost 40 years... so is Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh the first to point out inefficiencies in LATT methods?

What is going on? Are we creating our own chaos when we fail to uphold rules of conduct necessary for living in a civilize society?

Newsday Provided the Best Media Explanation online... Read the Article Below:

NEWS

Professional misconduct findings against 3 attorneys overturned

JADA LOUTOO

THURSDAY 18 DECEMBER 2025

Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh. - File photo

THE Court of Appeal has overturned findings of professional misconduct against three attorneys, ruling that the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Association (LATT) denied them a fair hearing and acted outside proper procedure.

In a consolidated judgment delivered by Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh, with concurring opinions from Justices of Appeal Nolan Bereaux and Maria Wilson, the court allowed appeals by attorneys Dinesh Rambally, Karina Singh and Desiree Sankar and set aside reprimands imposed on them in April 2024.

The appeals arose from complaints filed in December 2020 by Michael Dhanoosingh, who alleged conduct unbecoming against the attorneys in relation to their representation of him in property litigation involving the sale of family-owned land in Aranguez.

Dhanoosingh was unrepresented before the disciplinary committee and did not appear or participate in the appeal.

The committee investigating Dhanoosingh’s complaint was chaired by committee vice chairman Ian Benjamin, SC, and comprised members: Marcelle Ferdinand, Jo-Anne Julien and former independent senator Hazel Thompson-Ahye.

It had found the attorneys guilty of professional misconduct under Part B, Rule 18 of the Code of Ethics, which prohibits inexcusable or undue delay, negligence or neglect, and issued reprimands. The Court of Appeal ruled these findings could not stand.

Boodoosingh said the disciplinary process “did not, unfortunately, demonstrate” the structured approach required under the Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules.

“There was an absence of the structured approach to a disciplinary hearing that both the complainant and the attorneys might have been expected to have.”

He stressed that disciplinary hearings must follow a two-stage process, beginning with a preliminary assessment of whether a prima facie case exists, followed by a properly constituted hearing if such a case is established.

“The consequence of a finding of misconduct against an attorney is a serious matter,” the chief justice wrote, noting it can leave “a stubborn stain on his or her career, difficult to wipe away.”

The court found that the committee failed to require the complainant to particularise his allegations, did not clearly identify the specific breaches alleged, and did not subject the complainant’s assertions to cross-examination.

Instead, the hearings evolved into what the court described as an unstructured discussion that culminated in findings of guilt without clear reasons.

“One understands that a complainant may not be legally represented. A complainant might have no money to pay another lawyer to bring a complaint, or may be jaded and not wish to engage another lawyer because they may, justifiably or not, have lost faith in lawyers.

“In such a case, the committee must exercise its powers as any other tribunal being faced with an unrepresented litigant, guiding them on procedural matters as needed.

“Bearing in mind, this is an aspect of a self-regulated profession where the committee is charged with the responsibility for maintaining and enforcing high standards, the process must be simple enough and afford some flexibility.

“However, this is not an excuse to short cut the usual safeguards that someone who has been accused of misconduct should also have.

“The consequence of a finding of misconduct against an attorney at law is also a serious matter for the attorney and can constitute a stubborn stain on his or her career, difficult to wipe away.”

Boodoosingh noted that the committee appeared to have engaged in trying to understand the complaint after which the hearing “then morphed into a finding of guilt, and a discussion on an appropriate penalty…

“What occurred from the printed record in these proceedings was a rolling discussion over the six-day period between the chairman of the committee, with brief interventions by two other members, which culminated in a finding of misconduct and a reprimand being imposed. The transcripts do not demonstrate any reasoning as to why the committee found the three attorneys to be guilty of professional misconduct. There was a discussion of the nature of the penalty, but no clear opportunity was given for a mitigation plea to be made.”

Bereaux, in a detailed judgment, said the committee was “plainly wrong” and committed multiple errors, including entertaining complaints that were vague and lacking in particularity, and then formulating a new complaint of its own. He criticised the committee for raising, on its own initiative, concerns about the adequacy of legal advice surrounding a consent order—an issue that was not clearly raised by Dhanoosingh in his affidavits.

“There was no evidence from Mr Dhanoosingh that that was his complaint,” Bereaux said. He noted that the attorneys were effectively confronted with a new allegation midstream.

The court noted that Dhanoosingh’s affidavits against each attorney were virtually identical and did not specify how each lawyer’s conduct amounted to misconduct. By contrast, the attorneys filed detailed affidavits outlining their actions in the matter, including correspondence, court appearances and advice given. That evidence was not challenged or contradicted.

“It misdirected itself as to the nature of the complaint and the facts to be considered in regard to the complaint.

“The approach of the committee in the determination of the case against the appellants was a masterclass in how a disciplinary tribunal should not conduct itself,” Bereaux wrote.

“There was nothing in Mr Dhanoosingh’s complaints that was demonstrative of some form of misconduct.

“The complaints ought not to have led to a ‘full-blown’ disciplinary hearing. The appellants did not know the case they had to answer. To have required them to endure the oppression of disciplinary proceedings was unfair, harsh and unreasonable.”

Wilson, in her concurring opinion, underscored that while disciplinary proceedings may allow some flexibility when a complainant is unrepresented, such flexibility cannot justify abandoning fundamental safeguards of fairness.

“This is a matter where the reputation of attorneys was at stake. The decision of the committee will either have restored it or damaged it.

“It was incumbent on the committee to ensure that complainant stated the allegations in clear terms in the complaint.

“It mattered not that the complainant was not an attorney. The committee’s responsibility was to ask questions of the complainant if the allegations were not clear, and request that the complainant further particularise the claim. This was not turning him into an attorney as alluded to by the chairman of the committee,” Wilson wrote.

“It was the committee’s responsibility to ensure that the complaint before them clearly stated the allegations brought against the appellants. If it was not clear, then they would have to ask the complainant to provide the particulars rather than for the committee themselves to attempt to clarify the complaint.”

She added, “It is clear to us that the committee did not follow the established procedure in the hearing of these complaints brought against the appellants.

“This could possibly be due to the Committee’s attempt to assist an unrepresented complainant. Despite such a noble objective, the failure to follow the established procedures resulted in its decision being unsafe and in the procedure it adopted being in breach of the rules of natural justice…

“The committee may have some latitude to consider a complaint holistically and in context. However, it ought not to search the facts to identify some wrongdoing.” Beyond allowing the appeals, the court urged consideration of systemic reforms to assist unrepresented complainants.

Boodoosingh suggested that legal aid, volunteer attorneys or clinics, such as the Hugh Wooding Law School Legal Aid Clinic, could help complainants frame their complaints and present relevant evidence without compromising the adjudicative role of the committee.

“The committee has an important role in the regulation and maintenance of high standards of conduct in the legal profession,” the chief justice said. “This does not mean that the elements of a structured disciplinary hearing should be put to the side.”

The court also advised on providing a written decision when a finding of misconduct and a sanction is imposed.

“Where the decision of the committee imposes a finding of misconduct and a sanction of a reprimand, and that decision is less than two paragraphs with very little indication of what exactly the neglect or negligence in advising their clients was, the committee must lean in favour of providing a decision.

“This court notes that the sanction of a reprimand is not an insignificant punishment. The Registrar records such punishments pursuant to section 39(4) of the Act. It becomes part of the records of the registry and can have lasting professional consequences.

“A committee that feels assured, beyond a reasonable doubt that attorneys have breached its Code of Ethics must make their reasons clear for so doing, whether orally or in writing.”

Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, Kiel Taklalsingh, Stefan Ramkissoon and Nicholas Sant represented Rambally. Leon Kalicharan represented Karina Singh. Rajiv Rickhi, Ria Ramoutar, Shveta Parasram represented Desiree Sankar.

Commenting on the ruling, Taklalsingh said, “The decision is an important one for all professionals and in particular disciplinary bodies who may misuse their power of discipline.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the first instance Lawyers failing the accountability test... and now the public has no recourse?

What if I told you that I have a predicament worse than that of, Michael Dhanosingh.... perpetrated by one of those same lawyers that the LATT reprimanded?

Perhaps I'll expand another time... Are these all rational choices, or are we becoming a culture of Herd mentality?