EDITORIAL - New approaches to the crime bills

BY NOW, it should be clear to the Golding administration that it will be unable to pass, with Opposition support, its six crime bills if they were voted on today. That, largely, will be the administration's own fault. For two years, it failed to work at building consensus around the legislation, whose intent has broad public sympathy, but elements of which some people, particularly civil liberties campaigners, find offensive.

So, the recent scramble to bring the bills back to Parliament carries with it a whiff of opportunism - a seeming attempt to use the Tivoli Gardens uprising to burnish Prime Minister Bruce Golding's image as a tough crime fighter after the fiasco he made of America's request to extradite Christopher Coke.

But Mr Golding's ham-fisted handling of the bills notwithstanding, the administration may still be able to salvage something from the affair.

Mr Golding first has to accept that it may not be necessary to pass the six bills as a single package and be willing to accept what he can get now.

Possible trade-offs

instance, it is possible that legislators would be willing to approve - if safeguards are streng-thened and given the proposed limited life to the law - an extension, from 24 to 72 hours, of the period in which an individual can be detained before the habeas corpus rules kick in. As a trade-off, the administration may have to rescind its intention of giving to justices of the peace, in favour of magistrates, the authority to determine whether there were reasonable grounds to hold for this extended period a person who was detained in a police operation.

Additionally, we can hardly anticipate opposition to giving the right of appeal to prosecutors in cases where persons charged with serious offences are granted bail. And except for the fact that this may conflict with proposed plea-bargaining legislation, few people, we anticipate, would be hostile to extending from seven years to a decade, the time before persons convicted of the most serious crimes would become eligible for parole.

It is not unexpected, though, that many people are deeply concerned about the proposal that people accused of some crimes be arrested for up to 60 days without the prospect of bail, even though such persons would have to face a magistrate every 14 days. For, while the intent of the drafters may be understood in the context of Jamaica's high levels of criminal violence - nearly 1,700 murders a year - this will be deemed by many to be too sharp an intrusion on fundamental freedoms. So, too, would the proposed minimum 15-year sentence for some crime be seen as an impingement on the authority of judges and the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary.

Discourse necessary

Resolution of these issues requires discourse between the Government, Opposition and others, as well as new, flexible approaches to problem-solving. For example, the justice minister might wish to suggest to the chief justice that she issue new, tougher sentencing guidelines to judges.

Additionally, among the police's wish for their crime-fighting arsenal is a swifter justice system. In that regard, the elimination of preliminary inquiries into major crimes, particularly murder, should be considered. This could save up to 18 months on the early stages of a case.

Dialogue on these issues should start now, with all parties being aware of the crisis facing Jamaica.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.