The Minister of National Security says it is not only the
lower class, but also elite members of our society who engage
in crime (a quote from his 2005 Budget Speech).
The political leader of the UNC talks of laws to set up a
registry for sex offenders.
Movement for National Development outlines a crime plan in
which the party commits to making trafficking of “hard”
drugs, sexual assault and possession of illegal firearms attract
life sentences.
The Government says it has made kidnapping for ransom non-bailable,
yet an attorney applies for bail for an accused kidnapper.
And regionally, the Lord Bishop of Jamaica, while accepting
Jamaica is a society of murders and violence, contends forgiveness
is the answer.
Apart from the fact that they pertain to confronting crime,
what do these statements have in common?
The answer is they are either platitudes or simply declarations
based on an ignorance or distortion of the law.
It seems to me the purpose of all of them is to gain political
mileage, whether they are useful, true or otherwise of any
relevance to positive change.
The makers of the statements are careless as to whether they
misinform the public or hold out as something novel, banal
suggestions or established truisms.
Let us consider the well-publicised statement that well-off
members of society are engaged in crime at the planning/leadership
level. The minister indicated this in the 2005 Budget Debate.
So what else is new? This has long been talked off in many
quarters, but it is accepted, too, that given their access
to money and influence, it is difficult to bring such persons
to book.
The statement adds nothing to the mix, but begs the question
as to exactly who is protecting such people.
In similar vein is the Lord Bishop of Jamaica’s homily.
Forgiveness is all well and good (indeed, this is what the
Easter message is centred around), but how will this in itself
resolve all the ills of Jamaica, which has the second highest—if
not the highest—murder rate in the world?
The Lord Bishop’s assertion is of particular significance
at this time in Jamaica, where the new Prime Minister seems
bent on giving explicit political power to the church.
For instance, she has decreed all the boards of all state
companies must be chaired by a pastor. She has also stated
her belief that her appointment was a result of divine intervention.
In the light of this, a declaration by the head of a Christian
church must be of significance. But what does it convey?
It suggests once all is forgiven all will be well. If that
is not an opiate to the converted I don’t know what is.
Be that as it may, the end result is it will have no impact
on the escalating crime in Jamaica, and might even alienate
some more people who are likely to see the Church as out of
touch with reality.
One might well wonder the same thing as to the leadership
of the MND, given its recent utterances.
I hope by now they are clear that the maximum sentence for
trafficking of any illegal narcotic (not just cocaine or heroin)
already is life imprisonment, not to mention in addition a
fine of three times the value of the drug or $100,000, whichever
is greater.
In other words, we do not need the MND to come into power
for this to happen. This penalty was increased during the
UNC administration in 2000.
As for sexual assault, it is the current law that any person
convicted of rape or incest is liable to life imprisonment.
Interestingly, the law provides an even greater penalty than
“life imprisonment” for rape, where, for instance,
the victim is under 12 years, two accused are involved, the
victim was pregnant and the accused knew it, among other circumstances.
The greater penalty is liability to “imprisonment for
the remainder of his natural life.” This law was passed
in 2000, and it means life imprisonment can now be really
life.
Another matter that seemed to have escaped many, although
I do recall discussion on it, following the murder of Pixie
Lakhan a year ago, is the law as regards the sex offenders’
registry.
In 2000, such a law was passed so (as I pointed out in this
column last year), there is no need to call for laws to set
up a registry.
To my knowledge, for the first time this year, a judge actually
made an order of this kind. It requires the sexual offender
on release is subject to notification requirements and is
listed in a registry.
Two things are clear as regards this law:
(1) The order must be made for reporting at the time of sentencing.
(2) it will be a while before the law has any impact given
the registry/reporting will only be effected when the offender
is discharged from prison.
On a final note in relation to sentences, it is true the maximum
penalty for simple possession of a firearm is 15 years (which
is less than life), if tried before a jury and ten before
a magistrate.
But since they are concerned with the use that is sought to
be put to such firearms (as we all are), I expect MND would
be pleased to know that since 2004 the offence of possession
of a firearm to endanger life carries with it a penalty of
life imprisonment.
So if a firearm is drawn during a robbery, the offender may
be charged for this offence, and if convicted faces life.
Like most members of the public, I surely would like to see
the day when I can trust politicians not just to mean what
they say, but to say something meaningful.
Is this asking too much?
