This sentence for ganja possession is inhumane

Apr 03, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I write on the recent case in which a 23-year-old woman was sentenced to 2 years and 8 months imprisonment plus a fine of $159,000 after being found guilty of possession of 4 grams of marijuana. I must admit that I was disturbed and angry when I read this. Today marijuana has been decriminalized in a number of states here in the USA. In Oregon, any person 21years or over can have up to 8 ounces of marijuana in their home. Jamaica has decriminalized possession of a specified amount. In the Cayman Islands, there are calls for the government to grow the herb while in many parts of Europe national and county governments are busy identifying parks at which recreational use of the herb can be undertaken. In Guyana, we imprison a 23-year-old young lady for 3 years for having 4 grams of the herb in her home.
In the Kaieteur News of 5th February 2013, we read of a 20-year-old man being sentenced to three years’ probation for having committed larceny at Rami’s Fashion. The magistrate, on sentencing told him that he needs “to be a part of the Skills and Knowledge for Youth Empowerment (SKYE) project.” Couldn’t this young lady be given a similar sentence? Did she have a criminal record? Possession of a mere four grams of marijuana does not suggest intent to traffic. In Jamaica, senior Barrister Lord Anthony Grifford in his recent contribution to the marijuana debate is reported to having said “legislation is a human rights issue. One should have the right to do whatever does not harm other people.” In the light of such argument, what could have influenced the magistrate to meet out prison time plus a fine of $159,000 on 23 year old Miss Sultan?
Generally, it is held that the criminal justice system has most often been harder on men and more lenient with women. This perceived tendency of being tougher on men has existed for a long time and gave rise to the ‘chivalry hypothesis.’ This hypothesis holds that the justice system, made-up predominantly of male police, judges and correctional officers, has a tradition of chivalry and extend this attitude even to female offenders. Thus, according to the theory, the system treats females with more leniency than men. But this chivalrous hypothesis predates feminist theory on crime.
Feminists tend to dismiss this chivalry theory. They ask that we not confuse chivalry with paternalism. The justice system, they claim is paternalistic in its dealing with female offenders. Thus, just as parents can deal harshly with children who behave in a manner not considered age appropriate, similarly the justice system tend to be harsher on female offenders when they violate long held and cherished definitions of their purity. Female criminal justice officers and officials in particular, who see themselves as gate keepers of the morality of their sex, are extremely offended and angered when one of their kind behave in a manner that ‘embarrass the sex.’
These officers/officials are therefore even more inclined than their male counterparts, to deal harshly with female offenders. Was it this latter tendency that informed the severe sentence meted out to Miss Sultan? Have we been missing the full meaning of what they are up against when female citizens, who have had encounters with the justice system, share with us their preference to ‘be questioned or arrested by male officers,’ because they are perceived as being more sympathetic and respectful?
Mr. Editor, generally, more males than females commit crimes, however in recent time the level of female criminality has been rising. For example, in the United States statistics show between 1970 and 2000 the number of crimes committed by men grew by 46%, while crimes committed by females increased by 144%. To some extent this rise in criminal activities among females should not surprise. Women’s participation in activities outside of the home is on the increase and this is most visible at the work place.
Being out and about means that more opportunities are presented to women for committing crime, thus explaining the rise in their participation in same. In Guyana, the growing frequency with which females seem to be appearing before the court tend to suggest that we too are experiencing a rise in female involvement in criminal activities. This reality give rise to two questions: (a) Is our criminal justice system prepared for coping with the challenges and demands this growing group of offenders give rise to?  (b) To what extent does the criminal justice system’s response to female non-violent offenders satisfy the expectations of citizens?
Recently, President Granger was quoted as saying “mothers should be home taking care of their children,” as he sought to justify pardoning several female criminals. His opinion seems to suggest he supports leniency towards female offenders. Compare the president’s position to the behavior of the juvenile justice system. Sometime ago I read that at the new opportunity corps facility at Essequibo over 75% of the students (they are really inmates) are there for having committed the status offence of wandering.  Even though in Guyana boys wander much more than girls, I am willing to bet that a simple check at this facility will reveal there are more girls sent there for wandering than boys. This is so because girls, being away from the home, of their own volition, offend our concept of ‘proper behavior’ as it relates to young females. If I am right, the president and the criminal justice system are pulling in different directions. More importantly, which side reflects the people’s will?
Mr. Editor, there are those who demand that the criminal justice system be unbiased. But, aside from the fact that those who created our formal criminal justice system demanded it be bias, the system is manned by humans. Therefore, it will very often reflect our imperfections, our biases our assumptions. Indeed, research has shown that defense Attorneys tend to identify judges they would prefer not to appear before when representing clients charged with certain offences.
So, for example an attorney might think, if found guilty of committing rape, his client will stand a better chance of being given a light sentence if he appears before judge X rather than Judge Y who is known for being stern on persons guilty of rape. Make no mistake, lawyers in Guyana also identify specific magistrates and judges they associate with biases directed against specific offences and offenders. Biases that all but guarantee those found guilty of certain crimes would receive severe sentence meted out by a specific judge.
Mr. Editor, it seems to me, that the often seeming confusing and inconsistent sentencing that is noticed in decisions handed down by our courts, reflect the biases discussed above. And that   employing the chivalry vs paternalism theories might help us better understand (not agree) why young Miss. Sultan was so harshly treated (unjustly so in my estimation) by our criminal justice system here in Guyana.
Claudius Prince

---

---