Letter of the Day | Mandatory minimum sentences not the answer for gun crimes
Published:Tuesday | February 15, 2022 | 12:06 AM
THE EDITOR, Madam:
Jamaicans have waited patiently on a crime plan from our Government, which is long overdue. We have witnessed several states of emergency and zones of special operations implemented, masked as the “crime plan in action”. Jamaicans have held their breath, some have even died, since being promised that they can soon sleep with their windows and doors open without fear of criminal elements. Instead, the murder rate continues to soar – Jamaica ended 2021 with a whopping 1,463 murders. No doubt, many of these murders were committed by the use of illegal firearms, and it is against this background that Parliament has sought to get tough on gun crimes by implementing harsher penalties for gun-related offences.
Parliament recently tabled the Firearms (Prohibition and Regulations) Act 2022, which aims to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years on persons found guilty of illegal possession of a firearm. Whilst I understand the frustration of the Government and the people of Jamaica, who have been subjected to violent gun crimes over the years, I respectfully disagree with this approach of deterrence by imposing mandatory minimum sentences.
Section 48 of the Jamaican Constitution provides that Parliament may make laws for the peace, order and good governance of Jamaica. But Parliament’s power to make laws is not unlimited. Where judges are subjected to impose mandatory minimum sentences, it undermines the exercise of their judicial power and is clearly inconsistent with the constitutional principles of separation of powers. I therefore argue that mandatory minimum sentences are unconstitutional.
The most obvious and negative effect of mandatory minimum sentences is that it stifles the judiciary of the use of their discretion when imposing a sentence. Every case has its peculiarities and it is for the sentencing judge, based upon the circumstances of each case and in accordance with the judiciary’s sentencing guidelines, to impose an appropriate punishment for that particular crime. To allow the executive branch to direct the exercise of judicial power directly undermines not only the independence of the judiciary, but calls into question the confidence in our judicial system.
Crucially, also, the State has not adequately proven that it has the requisite resources to handle the consequences of imposing mandatory minimum sentences for the illegal possession of firearms. With already-overcrowded prisons, imposing mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes in Jamaica will surely send the prison gates tumbling down.
There is a reason Jamaica established a court specifically for gun-related cases, and that Gun Court matters are tried by judge alone and not by a jury. The magnitude of cases concerning illegal possession of firearm and ammunition are more than enough to burden our court system. To now impose mandatory minimum sentences would be adding more weight to a broken donkey’s back.
Crime is a social phenomenon and must be addressed at the root, not at the point of sentencing. The Firearms Act currently prescribes life imprisonment for persons convicted of illegal possession of firearms; yet still, we continue to see gun crimes at the heart of Jamaica’s crime problem. I urge this Government to review this approach with an open mind with regard to our Constitution, as well as the severe consequences, which may follow.
MATTHEW HYATT
Attorney-at-Law