PM: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 'WILL PROBABLY NOT BE REALITY'
By SANCHESKA BROWN
tribune242
Nassau, The Bahamas
DESPITE calls for murderers to be executed, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said capital punishment will probably not be a reality in the near future.
Instead, the government is considering the possibility of a "life" sentence being changed to actually mean "for life."
The Prime Minister said he knows people are frustrated with the high level of crime in the Bahamas. He says this is a frustration shared by most of the Caribbean. However, Mr Ingraham said swift executions is something that probably will not be a reality anytime soon.
"This is a country about the rule of law, and we have to abide by decisions made by our courts, even if we don't agree with them. Sometimes to the extent where we have to swallow it and accept it as reality," he said.
"The government cannot execute someone without the court certifying that all things were done properly, otherwise the government itself is committing murder and unlawful killing. Even if we change the law, it will take some time for that law to be able to be applied to persons who are convicted, and so there are several other things the society ought to consider in the interim rather than to expect something that is not likely to happen."
One of the suggestions made by the Prime Minister is to change the current life sentence from 25 years to actual life imprisonment.
"We may have to determine that life imprisonment means life in prison, your natural life in prison, you won't come out anymore," he said.
"We will have to categorise murders to determine that some cases should warrant the death penalty, while others may warrant imprisonment for life, their natural life and others for a lesser period of time. So that's what we are seeking to do."
The government was scheduled to debate the death penalty bill before they adjourned for the summer. However, when the House adjourned the bill was still not ready for presentation.
The proposed legislation will outline specific categories of murder. It is still unclear if the government will bring the bill when Parliament resumes on October 5.
Opposition leader Perry Christie said in his national address if the Progressive Liberal Party is elected to government his party will carry out the law as it relates to hanging.
Mr Ingraham declined to comment on Mr Christie's statement but did say he was pleased Mr Christie was able to address the nation on national television.
"When I was in opposition it was not possible for me to do so. With one radio station I couldn't buy time to be able to address the nation. He has a right to do so and I applaud him for doing so. I also want to point out that while he was prime minister I found no record of a national address by him in his five years in office."
No hangings were carried out under the PLP administration. The last time a convicted murderer was hanged was on January 6, 2000.
August 30, 2011
tribune242
An International Caribbean Online Log about the news and opinions in the Americas and World. This Caribbean Blog of global reach and appeal is maintained by Bahamian Blogger - Dennis Dames with all readers and subscribers in mind.
Showing posts with label capital punishment Bahamas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label capital punishment Bahamas. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Monday, July 18, 2011
Jamaica's Supreme Court ruled that certain amendments to Jamaica's Bail Act were unconstitutional... as The Bahamas attempts to craft amendments to its Bail and Criminal Justice Acts to keep serious offenders off the streets, and meet Privy Council standards to justify capital punishment in murder cases
Jamaica Supreme Court against mandatory bail
tribune242 editorial
Nassau, Bahamas
AS THE Bahamas attempts to craft amendments to the Bail and Criminal Justice Acts to keep serious offenders off the streets, and meet Privy Council standards to justify capital punishment in murder cases, Jamaica's Supreme Court ruled Friday that certain amendments to Jamaica's Bail Act were unconstitutional.
Like the Bahamas, serious crime has bedeviled Jamaica for many years, and, again like the Bahamas, Jamaica has attempted to stiffen its laws to protect its citizens.
In July last year, under the amendments, persons charged with serious offences in Jamaica could be denied bail up to 60 days.
However, two Jamaican lawyers, whose clients, charged with murder, were affected by the provision, challenged the amendment's removal of the citizen's right to bail. Of course, in all of these arguments, legal luminaries fail to factor in the law-abiding citizen's right to security and the government's duty to provide that security.
The two Jamaican lawyers also objected to the amendment's interference with the role of the judge to decide who should or should not get bail. It is true that judges should have the right to use their discretion in each case as to how each accused is treated. However, how does a community protect itself against a liberal judiciary that does not seem to appreciate the difficulties of the society in which it exists?
We have only to scan Nassau's murders of the past few weeks to appreciate what it would have meant if we had had a mandatory time in which murder accused, for example, could be held without bail. Several accused who are now dead would still be alive today to face trial. But no, a judge exercised his discretion, a lawyer won his client's case for bail, a gun was fired, and a funeral followed.
The cynic would say that the courts have been saved much time, and their criminal calendar reduced by the criminals taking the law into their own hands, by-passing trial and carrying out executions on the sidewalks. Vigilante justice will send our crime figures through the roof, threaten the country's reputation as a safe tourist resort, and our communities as safe places in which to live. We now have a choice -- mandatory bail for a reasonable period of time so that an accused person can get a fair trial, or let cases slide through the courts as they now do with the criminal deciding the verdict and becoming the executioner. Maybe these lawyers, who are trying to score brownie points with the number of clients they can get out on bail, should stop and think of the safety of their clients, even if they apparently give no thought to the safety of the community.
According to the report in Jamaica's Gleaner "the 60-day period in custody was subject to the right of the person being held to be brought before the court after seven days, and thereafter at 14-day intervals, at which time the court reviews the question of whether the person should continue to be held in custody or bail be considered. The prosecution also had the right to appeal against the granting of bail."
It seemed a reasonable proposal, especially in view of the danger zone in which the average Jamaican was being forced to live because of that country's level of crime. However, Jamaica's Supreme Court in a unanimous vote struck it out as unconstitutional.
The Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights praised the Supreme Court ruling saying that some human rights are protected by the constitution.
Some years ago Jamaicans were vocal about the Caribbean having its own court to replace the Privy Council, presumably on the very issue of being able to impose capital punishment in murder cases. Now that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is a reality -- established on February 14, 2001, coming into force in 2003-- the only countries so far to sign on have been Barbados, Belize and Guyana -- the rest, including Jamaica, are still with the judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
In fact the very issue that brought the Caribbean Court into existence -- the refusal of the Privy Council to allow capital punishment for persons convicted of murder who had spent more than five years in prison -- was in the end what kept Jamaica out.
The Jamaica Labour Party resisted the full powers of the CCJ on the grounds that it was a hanging court.
It's now up to the Bahamas government to bring in amendments that will help this community to curb crime and keep a serious offender behind bars until his case can be heard -- within a reasonable time -- before the courts.
July 18, 2011
tribune242 editorial
tribune242 editorial
Nassau, Bahamas
AS THE Bahamas attempts to craft amendments to the Bail and Criminal Justice Acts to keep serious offenders off the streets, and meet Privy Council standards to justify capital punishment in murder cases, Jamaica's Supreme Court ruled Friday that certain amendments to Jamaica's Bail Act were unconstitutional.
Like the Bahamas, serious crime has bedeviled Jamaica for many years, and, again like the Bahamas, Jamaica has attempted to stiffen its laws to protect its citizens.
In July last year, under the amendments, persons charged with serious offences in Jamaica could be denied bail up to 60 days.
However, two Jamaican lawyers, whose clients, charged with murder, were affected by the provision, challenged the amendment's removal of the citizen's right to bail. Of course, in all of these arguments, legal luminaries fail to factor in the law-abiding citizen's right to security and the government's duty to provide that security.
The two Jamaican lawyers also objected to the amendment's interference with the role of the judge to decide who should or should not get bail. It is true that judges should have the right to use their discretion in each case as to how each accused is treated. However, how does a community protect itself against a liberal judiciary that does not seem to appreciate the difficulties of the society in which it exists?
We have only to scan Nassau's murders of the past few weeks to appreciate what it would have meant if we had had a mandatory time in which murder accused, for example, could be held without bail. Several accused who are now dead would still be alive today to face trial. But no, a judge exercised his discretion, a lawyer won his client's case for bail, a gun was fired, and a funeral followed.
The cynic would say that the courts have been saved much time, and their criminal calendar reduced by the criminals taking the law into their own hands, by-passing trial and carrying out executions on the sidewalks. Vigilante justice will send our crime figures through the roof, threaten the country's reputation as a safe tourist resort, and our communities as safe places in which to live. We now have a choice -- mandatory bail for a reasonable period of time so that an accused person can get a fair trial, or let cases slide through the courts as they now do with the criminal deciding the verdict and becoming the executioner. Maybe these lawyers, who are trying to score brownie points with the number of clients they can get out on bail, should stop and think of the safety of their clients, even if they apparently give no thought to the safety of the community.
According to the report in Jamaica's Gleaner "the 60-day period in custody was subject to the right of the person being held to be brought before the court after seven days, and thereafter at 14-day intervals, at which time the court reviews the question of whether the person should continue to be held in custody or bail be considered. The prosecution also had the right to appeal against the granting of bail."
It seemed a reasonable proposal, especially in view of the danger zone in which the average Jamaican was being forced to live because of that country's level of crime. However, Jamaica's Supreme Court in a unanimous vote struck it out as unconstitutional.
The Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights praised the Supreme Court ruling saying that some human rights are protected by the constitution.
Some years ago Jamaicans were vocal about the Caribbean having its own court to replace the Privy Council, presumably on the very issue of being able to impose capital punishment in murder cases. Now that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is a reality -- established on February 14, 2001, coming into force in 2003-- the only countries so far to sign on have been Barbados, Belize and Guyana -- the rest, including Jamaica, are still with the judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
In fact the very issue that brought the Caribbean Court into existence -- the refusal of the Privy Council to allow capital punishment for persons convicted of murder who had spent more than five years in prison -- was in the end what kept Jamaica out.
The Jamaica Labour Party resisted the full powers of the CCJ on the grounds that it was a hanging court.
It's now up to the Bahamas government to bring in amendments that will help this community to curb crime and keep a serious offender behind bars until his case can be heard -- within a reasonable time -- before the courts.
July 18, 2011
tribune242 editorial
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Courts -- a nation's sovereignty
Tribune242.com editorial:
MANY BAHAMIANS thought that by ridding themselves of the Privy Council as this country's last court of appeal our judicial system could retain the death penalty. Although the Privy Council is still our final court of appeal, and although a large number of Bahamians still favour its retention, it is quickly losing its attraction for those who want to retain the gallows for convicted murderers.
"Hang 'em high!" is still the angry reaction in this country as Bahamians defend capital punishment as the final solution to the growing murder count.
However, it now seems that the Privy Council is not the only stumbling block to retaining the death penalty.
According to Tuesday's Gleaner of Jamaica, the European Union is starting to show its mighty muscles by threatening to withdraw grant funds if Jamaica does not employ an additional Supreme Court judge.
According to The Gleaner Jamaica's Justice Minister Dorothy Lightbourne explained that she had to "follow the dictate of the powerful bloc of countries in order to benefit from grant funds they have provided."
The conditions, the Justice Minister told Parliament last week during the sitting of the joint select committee, have to do with fighting corruption and to improve the justice system. "They have said we should increase judges and we have brought on one judge."
Drawing attention to the notation in the 2010/2011 Estimates of Expenditure, which read: "One additional judge has already been hired to meet the European Union condition," MP Dr Morais Guy commented:
"I would be happy if I am told that this is just a wrong choice of terminology because I cannot see how they are imposing conditions on the sovereign country of Jamaica."
He was told that the money granted by the EU was going towards improving Jamaica's justice system. Guidelines were set out as a condition of the grant. An addition of judges was one of the conditions if funds were to be forthcoming.
And so as the EU could threaten to withhold grant funds over a judge, it could also threaten to withdraw much needed funds if the Bahamas insisted on retaining the death penalty in its legal system.
As a matter of fact this threat was seriously discussed in our private office several years ago by a visiting European ambassador paying a courtesy call on his annual tour of duty.
We believe that this discussion took place around 1993 when the hot topic on the street at that time -- and of much concern to Bahamians -- was the Privy Council's decision that two Bahamians could not be hanged because they had been languishing on death row for more than five years. To hang them after five years would amount to inhumane treatment, the Council ruled. This meant that the sentences of all those then on death row for five years or more had their sentences automatically commuted to life imprisonment. It also set out a time frame for the future.
On being asked public opinion on the abolition of the death penalty in the Bahamas, we explained that we believed that Prime Minister Ingraham was an abolitionist, but that most Bahamians were strongly for its retention. However, if capital punishment remained on the statute books, the Prime Minister would uphold the law. It was then that the ambassador threw down the gauntlet.
And what would happen, he asked, if the EU withdrew all grants from the Bahamas unless capital punishment were abolished?
We replied that the Bahamas would then have to face a serious issue. However, we believed it would be considered a bullying tactic by a powerful European bloc against a small, defenceless nation, especially with the mighty US next door, where many states still used the electric chair to get rid of its murderers. We suggested that they flex their muscles with the US first, and then they could come and talk with the Bahamas.
What is now interesting is that England is becoming nervous about the clout that the European Court of Humane Rights is having over the UK courts.
In defending his country's national sovereignty, the Lord Chief Justice -- Lord Judge -- has declared that the English Supreme Court must have the final say in its own jurisdiction, and that common law -- which is common sense built up over more than 800 years, going as far back as legal memory (1189) -- must be defended and preserved.
April 08, 2010
tribune242
MANY BAHAMIANS thought that by ridding themselves of the Privy Council as this country's last court of appeal our judicial system could retain the death penalty. Although the Privy Council is still our final court of appeal, and although a large number of Bahamians still favour its retention, it is quickly losing its attraction for those who want to retain the gallows for convicted murderers.
"Hang 'em high!" is still the angry reaction in this country as Bahamians defend capital punishment as the final solution to the growing murder count.
However, it now seems that the Privy Council is not the only stumbling block to retaining the death penalty.
According to Tuesday's Gleaner of Jamaica, the European Union is starting to show its mighty muscles by threatening to withdraw grant funds if Jamaica does not employ an additional Supreme Court judge.
According to The Gleaner Jamaica's Justice Minister Dorothy Lightbourne explained that she had to "follow the dictate of the powerful bloc of countries in order to benefit from grant funds they have provided."
The conditions, the Justice Minister told Parliament last week during the sitting of the joint select committee, have to do with fighting corruption and to improve the justice system. "They have said we should increase judges and we have brought on one judge."
Drawing attention to the notation in the 2010/2011 Estimates of Expenditure, which read: "One additional judge has already been hired to meet the European Union condition," MP Dr Morais Guy commented:
"I would be happy if I am told that this is just a wrong choice of terminology because I cannot see how they are imposing conditions on the sovereign country of Jamaica."
He was told that the money granted by the EU was going towards improving Jamaica's justice system. Guidelines were set out as a condition of the grant. An addition of judges was one of the conditions if funds were to be forthcoming.
And so as the EU could threaten to withhold grant funds over a judge, it could also threaten to withdraw much needed funds if the Bahamas insisted on retaining the death penalty in its legal system.
As a matter of fact this threat was seriously discussed in our private office several years ago by a visiting European ambassador paying a courtesy call on his annual tour of duty.
We believe that this discussion took place around 1993 when the hot topic on the street at that time -- and of much concern to Bahamians -- was the Privy Council's decision that two Bahamians could not be hanged because they had been languishing on death row for more than five years. To hang them after five years would amount to inhumane treatment, the Council ruled. This meant that the sentences of all those then on death row for five years or more had their sentences automatically commuted to life imprisonment. It also set out a time frame for the future.
On being asked public opinion on the abolition of the death penalty in the Bahamas, we explained that we believed that Prime Minister Ingraham was an abolitionist, but that most Bahamians were strongly for its retention. However, if capital punishment remained on the statute books, the Prime Minister would uphold the law. It was then that the ambassador threw down the gauntlet.
And what would happen, he asked, if the EU withdrew all grants from the Bahamas unless capital punishment were abolished?
We replied that the Bahamas would then have to face a serious issue. However, we believed it would be considered a bullying tactic by a powerful European bloc against a small, defenceless nation, especially with the mighty US next door, where many states still used the electric chair to get rid of its murderers. We suggested that they flex their muscles with the US first, and then they could come and talk with the Bahamas.
What is now interesting is that England is becoming nervous about the clout that the European Court of Humane Rights is having over the UK courts.
In defending his country's national sovereignty, the Lord Chief Justice -- Lord Judge -- has declared that the English Supreme Court must have the final say in its own jurisdiction, and that common law -- which is common sense built up over more than 800 years, going as far back as legal memory (1189) -- must be defended and preserved.
April 08, 2010
tribune242
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)