Letter of the Day | Injustice of mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment
Published:Monday | May 6, 2024 | 12:06 AM
THE EDITOR, Madam:
The popular saying, “No one is above the law”, means that all individuals should be treated equally by our courts. This, of course, is subject to the court’s analysis, on a case-by-case basis, of what the application of the law should be for a particular individual. That is justice.
A corollary, perhaps, of no one being above the law is the flipside – no one should be treated as if beneath the law. Mandatory minimum periods of imprisonment for certain categories of offences do just that.
When Parliament dictates and imposes these kinds of sentences for particular categories of offences, it removes a trial judge’s role and discretion to determine an appropriate sentence, on a case-by-case basis, for individual offenders in such a category. In a sense, then, such offenders are beneath the law because the trial judge’s hands are tied and confined to the mandatory minimum periods of imprisonment. That is injustice.
I refer to the recent media reports on the charge against an American tourist in the Turks and Caicos for illegal possession of ammunition, which carries with it a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment of 12 years.
The accused contended that the ammunition was been left in his backpack by mistake as he is the holder of a hunter’s licence in the US. Assuming the court accepts the tourist’s assertion, then notwithstanding that, he still faces a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment of 12 years (although the Turks and Caicos legislation allows for a lesser sentence by the trial judge in exceptional circumstances). The case is a useful illustration that even for serious offences, one can argue that individual circumstances may call for leniency by the trial judge in the sentencing of particular individuals. Mercy, where appropriate, reflects all our humanity.
Jamaica’s Parliament has legislated for mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment under, for example, the Firearms Act. Unlike the Turks and Caicos, there is no provision in the legislation that allows the trial judge to impose a lesser sentence where there are exceptional circumstances (however, a Court of Appeal judge can later review the trial judge’s minimum mandatory sentence). This is cause for concern, namely, the injustice that can result to individual offenders (by the mandatory sentence of the trial judge) despite offenders having an arguable case for leniency – the injustice of some tarnishes our justice system generally.
Whether or not our courts treat mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment as constitutional, there is, in my humble view, a clear case against them because of the injustice it may cause in some cases. Also, I agree with the view that such sentences are likely to deter guilty pleas from accused persons, since it deprives them of their ability to urge on trial judges, factors showing why a sentence of imprisonment should be reduced below a mandated minimum period in deserving individual cases. This, in turn, will increase not-guilty pleas from accused persons who may have otherwise pleaded guilty and, in turn, increase the backlog of cases for trial.
A practical way for Parliament to address the injustice of mandatory minimum periods of imprisonment that it has already imposed by legislation, is to now amend that legislation to allow for trial judges to impose lesser periods of imprisonment (other than the mandatory minimum) where there are exceptional circumstances. Parliament should reconsider the introduction of any new legislation imposing mandatory minimum periods of imprisonment. Mandatory minimum periods of imprisonment give individuals affected only the bare minimum rights, if at all.
NORMAN DAVIS