When someone has been jailed for drug trafficking, usually words of praise circulate on social media platform.

When the sentence refers to a minor who has been served with a court decision eight years after incident, a U-turn to that sense of pride vested in one of our pillars of democracy is highly recommended.

For the sake of my fellow parents, I feel that this decision seems to have served the nation rather than the minor in question.

Such a delay caused irrevocable harm.

But in essence what are we all so inspired about on Facebook?

Usually the reasonable person advocates fairness, equality, legal thresholds, alternative punitive measures and so on.

We provide, inter alia, op-outs, warnings ad nauseam, enforcement orders, repayment schedules when the provisions of the law are intentionally breached, as a consequence of our sense of solidarity and emphatic good nature.

When the above assurances are granted in a timely manner, the system tends to conclude that it makes sense.

Definitely, one may argue that such allowances make more sense when the determination of justice takes an unjustifiable longer route. Logic dictates that, for example, community work would have been a win-win solution in view of such unwarranted delay.

What happened in this case is not beneficial to the Judiciary and the public at large. 

It exposed the inconsistent and unjust delayed periods granted by the judiciary, tacitly or formally, without providing a valid reason to serve the public at large offended by such criminal act.

Others thought that a dismissal (which may not be in the individual's best interests) would not have caused such hypertension in the circumstances.

However there are harder questions we should be asking. 

1. What took the court so long to decide this case and others before it?

2. What should be non-discretionary when it comes to decision-making processes involving minors being directly or indirectly impacted during its course?

3. Alas we forget, many children cannot exercise their right to enjoy family life, or build healthy relations and are not given access to all family members. How will they be compensated for their lost childhood?

4. How does the system give paramount consideration to the best interests of minors when they do break the law yet they are subjected to unjust delays?

5. In what manner does the judicial system incriminates a party to a civil case who egoistically diverts the process of justice to the detriment of an innocent child by keeping them away from all their loved ones? 

It is about time that adults stop playing games. If we must be fair....let's call a spade a spade and be fair equally and always.

Reasonable parents do not normally object to a reform process in their child's best interests. Parents understand when their children are being cared for and they would be ready to give up their rights for their children's well-being, especially when what the children need is beyond their control.

When their health is at stake we do our utmost to ensure the safety and wellbeing of our children.

Parents pledge their commitment and sacrifice many things, for many days,  to provide for their children's needs and education. It is not by chance that good character and principles are formed.

Yet, to revert to this unprecedented national alarm due to the recent adjudicating process, I must confess that I am not proud of a system when justice is not seen to be done.

In my humble opinion, short-sighted measures are as healthy as instant food.

Dr Lynn Faure Chircop - Advocate for Children's Rights & Youth Justice.