SET THEM FREE?

Nov 09, 2010 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

It seems only fair that since the laws of Guyana have been amended to remove the mandatory death penalty for a number of offenses that consideration should now be given to those who remain on death row in excess of twenty five years.
The laws of Guyana were recently amended to remove the mandatory death penalty for certain kinds of murder. The death penalty however remains on the books for certain offenses defined as category one crimes. Thus what we have is a partial removal of the death penalty.
Recently, the Guyana Human Rights Association made an appeal for those who have served to what amounts to a life sentence to be set free.
Their reasoning seems to suggest that since persons convicted of similar offenses today would receive a life sentence, which amounts to twenty five years in prison, then those who were sentenced to hang but whose sentences were not carried out and who remain in death row but who have spent more than twenty five years in prison should be set free.
The argument is simple. If someone commits a murder today that no longer carries a death sentence, that person no longer faces the hangman’s noose. That person would presumably be liable to a life sentence which runs for twenty five years, after which that person would be liable to be set free depending on the conditions of his or her sentencing.
On the other hand, under the old law, a person guilty of a similar offense would face a death sentence. So we can have a situation where two persons are convicted for the same type of offence, one in the past and one in the present.
The one in the past is sentenced to death and therefore remains on death row. The one presently convicted would serve a twenty five year sentence. It seems only fair therefore that the sentences of those on death row should be commuted to life imprisonment, and those who have been incarcerated for twenty five years should be set free.
Unfortunately, the law does not work retroactively and therefore the new amendments to the law do not affect those who were sentenced in the past. Therefore the death sentences remain in place.
However, it is not beyond the legislators and the government to consider the situation and take steps to deal with the problem.
No doubt the recent legislation would have been guided by human rights consideration and there is therefore no reason why a consideration of the plight of those who are presently on death row should not be considered.
There are however practical considerations. It is never a politically easy decision to free convicted prisoners. The public do not take lightly to such acts.
There is not much sympathy for the commuting of death sentences to life imprisonment, which just goes to show the dilemma that human rights organizations face.
If they can hardly convince the public that the death penalty should be abolished and death sentences commuted to life imprisonment, how much successful are they going to be in convincing politicians who have to consider public opinion when making decisions. There is also another consideration. How is anyone to be certain that those who have been sentenced to death no longer represent a threat to society?
There is however strong potency to the consideration that so long as it can be established that someone convicted to hang and who has served a life sentence of twenty five years, no longer represents a threat to the community, that person should be set free.
It will be a difficult decision for any government to make, moreso during an election year when politicians are conscious about securing the approval of the public.
Human rights consideration however goes beyond public opinion. What is at issue in the aforementioned argument is a system of fairness to those on death row.
The government, which has boasted that it now has advanced human rights legislation in place, should therefore give serious consideration to the fate of those who were sentenced to death for what is now a category two offenses and who have been on death row for more than twenty five years.
They should seriously consider evaluating each of these persons to determine the risk they face to society and whether they should not in all fairness be set free at this time.

Latest News

SET THEM FREE?

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| February, 7th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Allicock, Amsterdam named in GBA training squad 2025 Caribbean Boxing...

Interesting transfers, Clubs secure firepower...

North East beat Back Circle B; set up semi...

DCC executive laud Savory, Imlach for champion...

Dozens of young chess players participate in...

Shai Hope claims Green Belt and Dispatch of the...

Features/Columnists

Forward to the past

OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus

Process, procedure, political people and public servants

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

SET THEM FREE?

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| February, 7th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]