Mikel Jackson | Proposal of mandatory minimums for children not justified

Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) is making another appeal for the Government to reconsider its legislative policy on excessive mandatory minimum sentences, especially for children. While we acknowledge the severity of murder and other grave offences, and the importance of accountability, we maintain that the current proposals overlook children’s unique circumstances and vulnerabilities. They also undermine judicial independence.

During our presentation before the Joint Select Committee (JSC), JFJ expressed both apprehension and caution regarding the potential adverse effects of mandatory minimum sentences on the well-being and rehabilitation of child offenders. Having read the JSC’s report and what is being proposed for passage, JFJ is concerned that, in the case of children over 14 years, the penalties have undergone extensive changes which almost equalise them with the provisions faced by adults under the amendments.

For non-capital murder, for example, both a child of 14 years and an adult could be considered for a fixed sentence of not less than 30 years. The only difference in the sentences is the period that must be served pre-parole, with the 14-year-old serving a minimum of 15 years and the adult a minimum of 20 years. We are concerned that the child is not being treated vastly different from an adult, based on the JSC revisions of the bill.

JFJ points out that section 78(3) of the parent Child Care and Protection Act that afforded some judicial discretion, where the judge could impose a lesser period in all matters, has been unnecessarily changed and complicatedly written based on the JSC report. This now means that the judge has no discretion whatsoever in going below the minimums for murder but may only do so for other offences.

NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS

The likely negative implications of mandatory minimums on the criminal justice system cannot be overlooked. We ask parliamentarians to consider that, when court backlogs invariably happen, it means delayed court hearings for victims of crime such as rape victims. The observed negative effects of excessive mandatory minimums with the Firearms Act (2022) were of no surprise. The reported decline in the number of guilty pleas in the Gun Court is likely because the benefits under the Plea Negotiations Act cannot substitute for the guilty plea process under the Criminal Justice Administration Act. They are two completely different provisions.

The Memoranda of Objects and Reasons for the bills cite that these legislative amendments are necessary in response to the country’s murder rate, and sentiments from public officials intimating that the “public demands it”. While public accountability is important to legislative change, those changes must be informed by data and, even then, there must be a balance between what is being demanded versus what already exists in law. Currently, children ages 12 to under 14 years can receive a term of imprisonment not exceeding 25 years and children 14 years and older can receive up to life imprisonment. Importantly, there has been no evidence offered that judges are imposing ‘light’ terms of imprisonment. We also remind that, where there may be a judicial error, the director of public prosecutions already has the right to appeal.

Further, the statistics related to children, as provided by the Court Administration Division, were even less convincing, with a reported 47 children charged with murder between 2017 and 2023. The US, with its long history of mandatory minimums, is rife with studies that have shown that excessive mandatory sentences do not carry the deterrent effect often sought, and carry greater expense than anticipated for the State. Why are we then adopting what others are throwing out?

Child offenders are given a raw deal in Jamaica’s legislative framework. Consequent to the decision in the 2005 Lambert Watson case, when imposing a term of life imprisonment for adults, trial judges must stipulate a period to be served before eligibility of parole. However, a child age 14 can be sentenced for life without the possibility of parole! I would’ve hoped the minister of youth would be championing against this injustice rather than for the imposition of mandatory minimums.

Political expediency has no place in making laws. We need evidence-based, not knee-jerk, policy formulation. The current law already provides for a term of life imprisonment and, with the absence of evidence that suggests judges are not imposing adequate sentences, the need for change is unfounded. As we celebrate Child’s Month, let us rethink and exclude children from the imposition of mandatory minimum sentencing. We firmly believe that every child has the potential for redemption and, by investing in their rehabilitation, we are safeguarding the future of our nation.

Mickel Jackson is the executive director of Jamaicans for Justice. Send feedback to communications@jamaicansforjustice.org and columns@gleanerjm.com