Dear Editor,
I have noticed recently that there has been a call for our courts to consider the use of plea bargaining as a means of solving crimes that have defied the efforts of the police over a number of years. Indeed, Mr Ralph Ramkarran on his blog on July 25 suggested that the judiciary should consider the plea-bargaining option for dealing with Mr Hinds who admits to having been a member of a death squad. Mr Ramkarran argues that Mr Hinds might have valuable information that would allow for the solving of some high profile crimes and “putting more criminals behind bars.” While plea bargaining does have a history of being able to achieve what Mr Ramkarran said, it nevertheless does not seem to be very popular in countries in which it is widely used.
In a study done in Canada 80% of respondents indicated lack of support for it, while in Washington a study revealed that 82% of respondents rejected plea bargains (Herzog, Sergio, 2004). This is so even as at least 90% of criminal convictions in the USA are based on guilty pleas (Boston College Law Review 2010). There are a number of reasons why many citizens are not enthusiastic about plea bargains. In the same study referred to above, it was found that among the reasons people rejected plea bargaining were (a) the public usually favours a punitive policy for the handling of criminals; (b) the public sees the practice as being soft on crime in that offenders receive a punishment much less than they would have been given had they faced trial and been found guilty. Thus, this argument holds that plea bargaining promotes injustice, and punishment is no longer a function of the seriousness of the offence but rather the offender’s capacity to negotiate with the prosecution. (c) Families of the victims are against plea bargaining because person/s who were responsible for their loved ones’ demise will not be put away for a long time, and instead will be on the road after a brief period of incarceration. These families have a feeling of being let down by the criminal justice system. (d) Communities are displeased with plea bargaining since the notion that unrepentant killers will shortly be returning to their communities is not comforting.
Mr Ramkarran goes on to remind us of the extensive killings of citizens; many of them Indians during the Mr Jadgeo’s period of office and specifically between 2002 and 2004. When discussing the question of amnesty as it relates to Mr Hinds, Mr Ramkarran made the important point that in deciding on this the government should be careful and give some consideration to the views of a specific community. He pointed to the fact that Indians, in the case of Mr Hinds, “may well view him as a saviour in a difficult time.” Similarly, however, if a plea bargain is to be considered for Mr Hinds the feelings of the African community should also be considered. It was often African families who suffered the loss of loved ones in circumstances which suggested the involvement of a death squad.
So yes, there is a case to be made for a resort to plea bargaining in our criminal justice system. However it seems there are a number of considerations to ponder before initiating same. In the end Mr Ramkarran’s observation that the “APNU+AFC long term viability depends much on if it is able to grapple with, and treat with sensitivity, this dichotomous reality of Guyana” is true for all future governments of this troubled land.
Yours faithfully,
Claudius Prince
