The debate and focus on law reform have centred mainly on the civil side of the law. By comparison, the criminal side of the law has received little attention and even less money and other resources. In the process such resources that are directed at law reform, whether out of the national budget or by grant aid, have been directed at the civil side. This is not a judgmental statement but rather one of description and fact. Of course, not every aspect of the law or law reform can be compartmentalized into civil and criminal law. For example, expenditure on enhancing the Family Court or the Constitutional/Administrative Division of the High Court, the updating of the laws of the country and the law reports, straddle more than one branch of the law.
Moreover, any attempt at division of the law into compartments runs into a host of conceptual difficulties since law can be divided into several different groups and sub-groups such as civil law versus the common law, substantive law versus procedural law and tort law and contract law. What today’s column attempts to do is use the very broad distinction of the civil law and the criminal law, a distinction that usually turns on the two traditional different objects which law seeks to pursue – redress or punishment.
The object of civil law has been described by William Geldart in his book Introduction to English Law as “the redress of wrongs by compelling compensation or restitution: the wrongdoer is not punished; s/he only suffers so much harm as is necessary to make good the wrong s/he has done.” On the other hand, Geldard asserts that in the case of crimes, the main objectives of the law are to punish the wrongdoer; to deter him/her and others from committing the same or similar crimes, to reform him/her, and to satisfy the public sense that wrongdoing must be met with retribution.
As crime continues to dominate the national agenda and takes the lion’s share of the front pages of the national press, policy makers – mistakenly in the view of the Guyana Bar Association – are reluctant to address criminal law reform lest they be accused of being soft on crime. Far too often as well is that even where criminal justice reform is undertaken, the process focuses on the back end of the system (sentencing and corrections) and ignores entirely the problems at the front end (policing, prosecution, and indigent defence), problems that are usually left to be addressed as human right issues.
Complicating the issue is the injection of the concept of “consumers” of the criminal justice system of which crime victims, the public and taxpayers are the key players. Their conception of justice, public safety, and the offender’s risk for future criminal conduct may be very different from those of policy makers, those who have to shape what ought to be appropriate punishment for wrongdoers and those who suffer from and bear the consequence of crime.
In this regard, the regret expressed by former President Ramotar over his pardon of a child murderer without consulting with the child’s parents was instructive and admirable.
The APNU+AFC Manifesto, having identified Personal Security: Less Crime as the third Foundation for Development dealt at some length on Crime Reduction, Personal, Public and Territorial Security but of the eleven steps identified none deals with criminal justice reform at the back end. It is all about a Security and a Drug Plan, forensic equipment, reform of the police, the prison service, the Complaints Authority and resources.
On its victory at the polls just under six months ago, the Granger Administration took the significant step of renaming the Ministry of Home Affairs the Ministry of Public Security and stripping it of some of its functions such as citizenship and work permits with a view to allowing it to concentrate on security.
That the Ministry has become embroiled and better known for two issues not directly involved in security – the 2 AM curfew and the designation of the Hindu holiday Diwali – does not take away from its key function: making Guyana safe for citizens.
Serious and meaningful criminal justice reform will require cooperation of several agencies including the Judiciary, the Ministries of Public Security and Legal Affairs and the National Assembly hopefully in consultation with the Bar Association, the Guyana Association of Women Lawyers and the Guyana Human Rights Association. In the near six months of the APNU +AFC Government there has been little indication of any emphasis on criminal justice reform which would be unfortunate indeed.
If it becomes necessary the Bar Association will take the lead in initiating criminal justice reform. It is too important a need to go unaddressed.
