Dear Editor,
I have found myself disagreeing with the actions of this government which I support and thank God every day came to power in May 2015. I think Mr. Granger is among a small number of nationalists residing in Guyana who are most suited for the Office of President at this time. But even as I support him I have found, among other things, that I disagree with him on some criminal justice issues and especially with his philosophy on pardons for offenders. I have said in previous letters that while I agree on the need to pardon some non-violent offenders I do not agree with how he seems to conceive this process should be undertaken. I also indicated that the pardoning of criminals cannot and should not be divorced from redemption for the persons and communities they have wronged or offended. Holding that mothers should be home taking care of their children and merely on that ground pardoning female criminals is not good enough and misleading in its assumptions.
In Stabroek News of 9th March 2008 I shared with readers the result of research I did with 92 students at the New Opportunity Corps. In that study I found that of the 92 students I spoke with only 13 came from homes in which their fathers were present, the remaining 79 came from female-headed homes – headed usually by mothers, aunts or grandmothers. Also in the said letter of March 9th 2008 I referred to findings of the famous social scientist Dr. Dobson who after years of research concluded, “Sons of single mothers are at greatest risk for violence, apparently because they spend less time with their fathers.” If we accept these findings, the president’s action of pardoning convicted and imprisoned mothers because of his expressed concern for the children of these mothers, might have been misguided. At least in the case of sons, the president might have been better advised to pardon imprisoned fathers.
Recently the president was reported as having expressed how heartened he was at receiving a “thank you card from one of the 11 mothers who were pardoned by him.” I understand his joy and I hope all 11 of the pardoned mothers make good use of their second chance. However I would have preferred to also hear from the president on what has been done to restore to wholeness the lives of the victims of the crimes perpetuated by these pardoned criminals. I would have loved to hear that at least the victims of the crimes committed by pardoned convicts were informed of the president’s intention to pardon those who did them wrong. I would have loved to hear that representatives of the president met with victims to explain to them why he was giving the pardons and their support of his action sought. True, most of the victims might not be convinced to support his actions, but at least by meetings with them the office of the president would have shown respect for the victims. This is what the president don’t seem to get – justice cannot be achieved when wrongdoers are pardoned while victims are left unattended.
Editor this brings me to the recently established Advisory Council on the Prerogative of Mercy. As I understand it this Council’s duty is to advise the president on the implementation of capital punishment. However based upon reported comments of the president the Advisory Council will also be relied on to offer the president guidance on other criminal justice matters including presidential pardons generally. If my assumption is correct I am forced to ask why then is an entire half of this six-person (including the chairman) council made up of trained lawyers? Further the constitution says one member of the council shall be a doctor, this I can understand, but who are the other members? What specific skills and knowledge do they bring to this Advisory Council? Is there a sociologist among them? Was the Guyana Association of Professional Social Workers invited to have a representative on this council? Is any of the council’s members trained or have worked in corrections/rehabilitation? If the answer to these questions is no will a representative of the government kindly explain why not?
Editor, this is one occasion where cries of an absence of skills cannot be offered as an excuse. In Guyana there are a number of persons trained in sociology and social work. From this distance it seems to me that on criminal justice issues the president needs help. I am convinced that he means well, that his intention are laudable, but he certainly seems to be wanting on the best socially acceptable alternatives that can be used for achieving his goals. For example, persons awaiting trial and denied bail and persons who have committed crimes that many feel should not carry a penalty of prison time can be sentenced to home confinement and made to use ankle bracelets.
In Kane County in the state of Illinois the county began to increase its use of electronic monitoring (ankle bracelets). In 2011 a study found that of the 382 persons who were being monitored in this fashion only five committed another crime while wearing the bracelet. This is an alternative that should be at the disposal of judges. It is the judge who decides which convicted persons are to be allowed to serve their sentence in this manner.
Years ago in the USA there was an experiment with a type of sentencing that had four phases. For example a person is given a six years sentence. However this sentence can be greatly reduced by the convicted person agreeing to participate in a prison programme that allows persons to serve the first year confined to the prison. Based upon his/her behaviour the second year can be spent on work release. That is working outside of the prison and returning to the prison at evenings. The prisoner’s earning is divided between making restitution to victims, contributing towards his/her upkeep in prison and to the wellbeing of his/her dependents. Based upon how this goes the convicted person could be tentatively released in his/her third year and monitored over the next three years (the full term of his sentence). Of course if he/she commits a crime during the period he/she is returned to prison with his/her period on work release not credited so he/she will serve out the other five years of their sentence without the possibility of any form of pardon.
All these are alternatives that can be pursued, but these can only be considered if both the president and the justice system are aware of them and the success stories attached to their adoption. Using some of these approaches would reduce the need for the president to be making so many pardons, being seen as undermining the justice system and attracting so much criticism to himself. Thus the president needs at his disposal an advisory council which has among its members persons with knowledge in the area of correction/rehabilitation.
Yours faithfully,
Claudius Prince.
