The PNCR-1G on Wednesday withdrew a motion to have community service introduced as a penalty for certain offences after it failed to agree with amendments proposed by the government, which sought to remove the timeline set for the legislation to be implemented.
The motion, which was in the name of PNCR-1G MP Deborah Backer, sought to have non-paid community service replace imprisonment as a form of punishment for minor criminal offences. It said research has shown that for community service coupled with mandatory participation in rehabilitation programmes is more beneficial to the community and to the offender.
The motion also called for a Community Services Bill to be tabled in the National Assembly by July of this year. It also highlighted “that the Government of Guyana Justice Sector Reform Strategy of 2006-2010 has identified ‘Introducing legislation to provide a modern framework for community service orders’, as one of its goals.”
Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee had moved to have the motion amended to “have a multi-sector approach, with additional skills, technical and financial resources”. His amendment also sought “to examine the legislative instruments and to introduce appropriate amended legislation and the rest, after consultation with relevant stakeholders.” With this amendment to the motion, Rohee was seeking to have the July deadline removed from the motion.
Backer, during her presentation, described the motion as “non-controversial” and added that similar legislation had been successfully implemented elsewhere, including in Caribbean territories such as Dominica, St Lucia, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago.
Backer said that in Guyana, imprisonment was very common and called for community service to be introduced for minor crimes. She called for the existing Extra Mural Work Act (which provided for extra mural work to be issued instead of imprisonment for persons found guilty of minor offences) to be repealed and to be replaced by more modern legislation. The Extra Mural Work Act has been in existence since 1955, she explained.
The PNCR-1G MP proposed that the new legislation should include the list of offences for which community service could be issued as a penalty should be clearly identified. She also said that before community service could be issued, the offender had to agree to it.
According to her, the time the person has to do so should be clearly stipulated. She pointed out that the hours of the community service should not conflict with the person’s hours for paid labour, nor should it conflict with the person’s days or worship or their religious holidays. She said that there must also be penalties for breach and that the person must be required to answer to a social worker, to ensure that there is some rehabilitative effort.
She also said that since the Guyana Police Force is already overtaxed and since the emphasis of modern community service legislation is on rehabilitation, the Social Services Ministry should be made to oversee such a programme.
Rohee ,while saying that the motion was a good one, pointed out that it was a complex issue. He said that the National Commission for Law and Order has been agonizing over this particular matter for a long time since it recognises the significant legal and social implications of the matter.
Rohee also said that when it came to the issue of the population in the prisons, community service was not necessarily the answer but rather a reform of the country’s criminal justice system where matters could be heard speedily so that there would be fewer prisoners on demand.
The minister pointed out that in the society, the majority of persons wanted to see criminals suffer maximum penalties for their crimes. He added that it was essential that the wrong signals were not sent to potential criminals.
Rohee argued that the motion, in its original state, made no reference to “consultations” and therefore called it an elitist approach. He said that such a major issue needed to be made a matter of widespread consultation which would take time. He said the amendment sought to leave the issue open-handed and promised that upon the conclusion of consultations, the requisite bill will be brought before the National Assembly.
PPP/C MP Anil Nandlall described the introduction of community service as “a penal sanction for certain types of offences is an attractive and progressive sociological and jurisprudential concept”. He called for widespread consultations on the matter and argued that the timeline in the motion was too short.
He said the government needed to proceed cautiously on the issue and in so doing consult widely with citizens. This, he said, would be necessary to not only “solicit their views, but also to inform and edify them in respect of the reasons and rationale for implementing such a measure and the benefits which can be derived there from.”
PPP/C MP Bernard De Santos also spoke on the government’s behalf, arguing that studies needed to be done and appropriate institutional structure had to be in place. He said if these were not in place, persons would be able to escape the law. De Santos, however, opined that there were several benefits that could be derived from the programme.
GAP/ROAR MP Everall Franklin supported the motion with the amendments but said a number of issues had to be worked out. He opined that under the current legal system, criminals are often punished for their poverty. He explained that some persons who were convicted of minor offences were fined but if unable to pay were consequently imprisoned. He argued that after spending time in prison, they often emerge as hardened criminals. He argued that the community service would be a viable alternative for such persons.
Clarissa Riehl of the PNCR-1G emphasised that were community service to be introduced it would reduce the population of the prisons thereby reducing state expenditure. She said that the prisons were badly overcrowded and pointed out that in the Georgetown Prison alone there are approximately 1,088 inmates – double the capacity of the prison.
She said the introduction of community service had been outlined in the Guyana Justice Sector Reform Plan (2006-2010), and the reason the motion was done was to fast-track, its introduction, especially given that 2010 was the deadline for the five-year strategic plan.
Speaker of the House Ralph Ramkarran was about the put the motion to vote, when PNCR-1G Chief Whip Lance Carberry said that if the government was not prepared to put a timeline to the motion, the party would withdraw the motion and he proceeded to do so.
PPP/C MP Odinga Lumumba and AFC MP Latchmin Punalall also spoke on the motion.
