House removes mandatory death sentence

Oct 15, 2010 News

---

By Gary Eleazar

The National Assembly last evening made a historic move when it unanimously approved the removal of the mandatory use of the death penalty for persons convicted of murder.
This was done when Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Charles Ramson, successfully piloted the Criminal Law Offences (Amendment) Bill.
In his presentation to the House, Ramson said that at present the principal act does not allow leeway for judges, in that once a jury convicts a person of murder, then the Judge must notify the convicted that they will be sentenced to death lawfully.
He said that over the years there has been an outcry as it relates to the death penalty and the amendments now allow for alternatives to be in place for the judge.
The abolition is not total since it will still be mandatory for certain categories of murder.
He explained these as being the killing of a law enforcement official while on duty, prison officers, members of the judiciary and legal officers, witnesses, as well as jurors, while in the execution of their duties.
Ramson pointed to the fact that ever since the 1950s the country’s colonial masters, by way of the Homicide Act, abandoned the mandatory death sentence in their country but left it in place for their colonies.
He said that what was not good for them was still deemed okay for their colonies.
Ramson asserted that the issue has now become a moral and human rights issue, and in recent times, the calls have been growing for it to be addressed.
The amendments allow for a judge to issue a life sentence of or a minimum of 15 years or any amount above that.
Shadow Legal Affairs Minister Clarissa Riehl, in her presentation to the House, recognized the need for certain categories of murders to be retained, but said too that one specific category that should have been retained also was murders as a result of domestic violence.
Riehl lamented the many murders in recent times which have occurred as a result of prolonged domestic violence which is a scourge that has been tainting society.
Scores of women have been slaughtered in recent years at the hands of their abusive lovers and according to Riehl, it should have been left in the law to have such persons face the mandatory death penalty.
She was also of the opinion that murders as a result of piracy and hijacking should also be subjected to the death penalty.
Riehl reminded the House that it was only recently that the laws were amended to make killings at the hands of pirates punishable by death. Now, she said, the government is changing this.
At present, a person will be eligible for parole after serving at least a third of their sentence, but with the new amendments, Riehl pointed out that a person must now serve 20 years before becoming eligible.
She sought to clarify whether it was calendar years or prison years, which she said is in actuality just eight months.
Riehl questioned whether the allowed 15-year minimum sentence for murder would also be prisons years, which would make the sentence far less than 15 calendar years.
She asked if it would now be possible for a person to kill during a domestic spat and be sentenced to just 15 years.
Riehl said that the administration should start paying more attention to the root causes of crime in Guyana, as many laws are being passed with stiffer penalties but the desired result is not being achieved.
One example cited was the fact that there is the law that a person should not be using cellular phones whilst driving, but this is still happening blatantly, even in front of police stations.
People’s Progressive Party/Civic Member of Parliament and Attorney-at-Law, Anil Nandlall, in his presentation to the house, sought to explain the context in which the law was being passed.
He pointed out that the law was passed 117 years ago, and provides for the mandatory sentence of death should that persons be convicted of murder.
“What this does is it retains the death penalty but also provides an alternative.”
Nandlall told the House that it must be noted that when one interacts with people, their reactions to certain violent crimes is invariably why the death penalty is not being used.
He said that it must also be noted that there are several large human rights organizations and conventions, many of which Guyana have signed on to, which are calling for the abolition of the death penalty, and no democracy can ignore these calls.
He said that what the amendments does is provide a delicate balance, adding that Government’s obligation is to use the law as a mechanism to find common ground and bridge the gap.
Nandlall did impress upon the House that there is something fundamentally wrong with a mandatory death penalty across the board.

---

---