PARDON THEE BUT RELEASE ME!

Dec 21, 2015 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

Eleven women prisoners will be reunited with their families at home this Christmas, compliments of a pardon granted by the President. The pardon is a reserve power under the Constitution similar to the much- criticized power of prorogation of the National Assembly.
No one is however questioning the right of the President to pardon prisoners. There have, however, been criticisms over some of those pardoned in the past.
Last year, male prisoners who were said to have committed non- violent crimes such as stealing cellular phones were released. This flummoxed many people since the very act of taking away a cellular phone from someone is a violent act. The act of breaking into someone’s home and stealing their phones is an act of violence — physical violence against property and emotional violence against the victims and their families.
Again this time, the public is being told that the criteria for granting the pardon to the eleven women to be released today will be that they must not have committed non- violent offenses except those involved in trafficking in illicit drugs and people.
It would be interesting to learn exactly what offenses those persons who will be released committed that are deemed non- violent and outside of drug and people trafficking.
There have been criticisms of the exercise of pardoning prisoners. It is said this sends the wrong signals to criminals. It tells them that they stand a chance of being freed if they commit non- violent crimes which supposedly entail crimes such as fraudulent conversion, simple larceny, criminal contempt, aiding and abetting the commission of a criminal act, escaping from custody, possession of narcotics, driving under the influence, dangerous driving, tax evasion and fraud, burglary, larceny, bribery, indecent exposure, immigration offenses, using obscene language, illegal possession of firearms, conspiracy to commit an offense and breach of peace. This is a short list of non- violent offenses from which those likely to be pardoned may be drawn.
The President’s right to pardon prisoners is without challenge. So too is a President’s right to prorogue parliament.
The President’s right to compassion is also without challenge. But what about the forgiveness to those who were offended by the criminal acts committed by those who will now be pardoned. He who feels it knows it.
Have the victims of these non- violent crimes been consulted to determine whether they are in agreement with the pardon. They do not have to but has any consideration been given to reconciling those pardoned with their victims?
There is also the issue of the categories of persons who have been pardoned. What about those who have committed violent crimes in a fit of passion?
What about if those persons are truly remorseful, that is what if the violent act was not pre-meditated but committed the crimes for which they were convicted in a fit of passion?
We have in this country on special events released persons who are on death row. Burnham did this when Guyana became a Republic. Among the persons released were those on death row.
After Operation Urgent Fury, the American invasion of Grenada in 1983, those involved in the toppling of the Prime Minister Maurice Bishop were subject to a kangaroo trial and some of them were sentenced to death, later commuted to life. Bernard Coard, the Deputy Prime Minister was sentenced to death.
This was commuted to life imprisonment in 1991. Coard’s wife who was also originally sentenced to death was released on humanitarian grounds. Bernard Coard was also later released. Coard was himself later pardoned.
The Privy Council in 1993 ruled that delays of more than five years between sentencing and execution constituted inhuman and degrading treatment. This could be the basis of releasing the person.
In Guyana persons have been languishing in death row for over twenty five years. Some have died while awaiting execution. These days, we are reading about persons being sentenced to over one hundred years of imprisonment. These persons will never be able to serve out their time.
If someone has served more than twenty five years in prison, has been a model prisoner, has constitutionally been subject to inhuman and degrading treatment by virtue of their incarceration, if the families of their victims approve of their release, should those prisoners not also be eligible for the mercy and compassion of the President?

Latest News

PARDON THEE BUT RELEASE ME!

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| April, 4th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

‘One Guyana’ 3×3 Quest Basketball opens with local teams in...

GCA, East Coast surge to huge wins

GFF/Concacaf kick off two-day Match Commissioners...

Chase’s Academic outclass Bartica to move...

Three Miles Secondary make clean sweep of Jagan...

National Chess champions off to Trinidad and...

Features/Columnists

This must not be our hour of humiliation

The U.S. “Joining” the Commonwealth: an unreasonable expectation

Security – Guyana needs it, pays for it

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

PARDON THEE BUT RELEASE ME!

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| April, 4th, 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 […]