Gov’t urged to rethink policy on mandatory minimum sentences for children in 2024

Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) has made an appeal for the Government, in 2024, to reconsider its legislative policy on excessive mandatory minimum sentences, especially for children.

The human-rights organisation is pushing for a rethink of the policy as lawmakers prepare to debate the report of the joint select committee on three critical pieces of legislation in the last quarter of the legislative year, which ends in March 2024.

Mickel Jackson, executive director of JFJ, is urging legislators to vote based on evidence when the report of the joint select committee is debated.

“We urge legislators to reject any proposal for mandatory minimums for children,” she said.

The joint select committee considered and made recommendations on the Criminal Justice (Administration) (Amendment) Act, the Offences Against the Person (Amendment) Act, and the Child Care and Protection (Amendment) Act, 2023.

Following extensive deliberations and submissions from several groups and individuals, the majority of the committee members recommended life sentences for children, age 14 to 17 years, who commit capital murder but also proposed that, where a fixed term is imposed by a judge, the young offenders should serve a minimum of 20 years before parole.

One opposition member abstained from making a definitive proposal, while another did not offer an opinion on the mandatory minimum for children.

In its outlook for 2024, JFJ is cautioning that the Government’s push for excessive mandatory minimums is a dangerous and misguided policy that has been deemed a failure when comparative analyses are done in other jurisdictions.

“What is further shocking in the ill-advised legislative agenda is the push for mandatory minimums to apply to children. Even in limiting this to those who commit capital crime, this blanket policy is fundamentally unjust and detrimental to the well-being and rehabilitation of young offenders,” Jackson said.

Ignores unique circumstances

She argued that while JFJ acknowledges the gravity of capital murder offences and the need for accountability, imposing mandatory sentences on children fails to recognise the unique circumstances and vulnerabilities that may lead them down such a tragic path.

Insisting that the Government revisit its mandatory minimum policy for children, Jackson said the JFJ’s recommendation is of paramount importance, considering the pervasive influence of gang culture which frequently leads youth into serious criminal activities, such as illegal possession of firearms, gang affiliation, lotto scamming, and even homicide.

“It is crucial to recognise that in many cases, the involvement of children and young adults is coerced, or their backgrounds indicate significant hardships that should be taken into account as potential mitigating factors.”

The imposition of mandatory sentencing obstructs avenues for diversion and rehabilitation, said Jackson, arguing that this runs counter to the best interests of the child, as stipulated in both the Child Care and Protection Act and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

She noted that with the proposed mandatory sentence, the court will not be able to consider the circumstances surrounding that child’s criminality, leading to unjust sentences.

At present, the capital murder sentence in Jamaica goes to a maximum of life imprisonment at the judge’s discretion.

“It is our position that this is more than sufficient as a threshold to adequately employ just punishment,” she added.

The human-rights organisation observes that countries such as the United States that held mandatory minimums as a kind of panacea for crime-fighting have had to revisit such failed policy positions.

“Based on the evidence of what has happened elsewhere, and even examining the inevitable mishaps of the Firearms Act, where, already, foul-ups have led to another review being necessary, Jamaicans for Justice is again strongly cautioning against this approach and urges the Government to reconsider its legislative agenda for 2024.”

In its submission to the joint select committee, JFJ contended that mandatory minimums were a failed policy that offered no real deterrent to crime. JFJ believes that they have far-reaching negative implications for the entire criminal justice system.

Noting that mandatory minimums lead to the overcrowding of prisons, JFJ said this not only puts a strain on resources, but also makes it difficult to provide adequate care and rehabilitation to inmates, especially ageing inmates who will need medical care.

“For the avoidance of doubt, JFJ is not arguing that hardened criminals who commit heinous crimes shouldn’t be held responsible. What we are saying is that the law, as it stands, does mandate a maximum life imprisonment, but allows judges some discretion to weigh the unique circumstances of each case.”

Jackson cautioned that the Government cannot legislate the judiciary becoming a rubber stamp for imposing terms of imprisonment set by the legislature. This, she said, is an affront to the principles of fairness of the justice system and the separation of powers necessary for a functioning democracy.

Additionally, Jackson said mandatory minimums have been shown to disproportionately affect marginalised communities, further perpetuating systemic inequality.

“Therefore, those who cannot afford the private attorneys, and possibly go all the way to the Privy Council to pursue an appeal process, will be subjected to mandatory minimums, rather than maintaining the discretion currently provided to judges to impose just sentences.”

Jamaica’s Chief Justice Bryan Sykes has cautioned that the move towards increased mandatory minimum sentences could threaten the gains made by the court in reducing the significant backlog of cases. He suggested that increased mandatory minimum sentences would not incentivise accused persons to plead guilty.

editorial@gleanerjm.com