Two days ago, a man who pleaded guilty to beating his wife to death, after which he gruesomely degraded her corpse was sentenced to 22 years in prison, but will serve just 14 years. Eight years were deducted by the presiding judge because of the time the man had spent in prison, his guilty to manslaughter plea − the judge’s view being that he did not waste the court’s time − and the convict’s plea for leniency. (He had begged the judge for a “small sentence” so he could some out “early and build a future”.) One imagines that his now dead wife, 40-year-old Nandranie Narine might also have begged for her life as she was being beaten to death.
Last year, a man who chopped his wife to death after he had heard a rumour that she was unfaithful, was sentenced to death following his trial by judge and jury.
Anomalies in sentencing based on whether a convict is found guilty by a jury of his peers, or whether that person pleads guilty to manslaughter continue to confound the average layperson. Justice tempered with mercy is obviously the basis for some of the lighter sentences meted out. But one cannot help but wonder whether the heinous nature of the crime is ever taken into consideration by the prosecution when the decision is made to accept a guilty-of-manslaughter plea in cases where it is clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that a murder has been committed and by the judges who hand down these sentences.
Late last year, the Club de Madrid, a group of 31 former heads of state—the majority of whom are men—convened a conference in the United States to address women’s empowerment. Among the many issues up for discussion at the forum was the question of whether equal rights for women were still being implemented and enforced and how women’s rights can be sustained in a time of crisis.
Given that violence against women has reached and exceeded crisis proportions in Guyana and that it can in fact be termed an epidemic, the question of the sustainability of women’s rights is very relevant. Even more so when legal measures put in place to protect women are being ignored. A case in point is the situation of a victim of domestic violence being told by the court that she needs to wait four months for the decision on an Occupational Order sought under the Domestic Violence Act. It is cases like this that give rise to the perception that there is no nexus between the constant calls for women to report domestic violence attacks and follow through on ensuring charges are brought and legal processes followed and what actually happens once they do this.
It should be noted that the Social Institutions and Gender Index lists violence against women—its prevalence, attitudes towards it and laws (or lack of) dealing with it—among the measures underlying discrimination against women. Whenever women, whether dead or alive, are subjected to injustices because they are women it means discrimination is present.
The holding up of a 33% representation of women in Parliament as a standard denoting the respect of women’s rights can be considered nothing but a sham, as long as women continue to be battered, raped, murdered and endure other forms of discrimination which are hardly being addressed.
That is not to say that women’s empowerment has not advanced significantly in recent times. No doubt there is much to celebrate with regard to this. But would it not be infinitely more satisfying if there were nothing to celebrate—not because there would have been a reversion to the dark ages, but because a time of great enlightenment would have arrived? A time when every man, woman and child would be treated equally as human beings; when every person would be accorded equal human rights regardless of gender.