What were the criteria for pardoning convicted offenders?

Dear Editor,

Amidst the recent crime upsurge, it is time we revisited the matter of pardons. Putting convicted criminals back into a society bleeding even more from crime in recent weeks is reckless and could compromise public safety. You cannot pardon criminals without first fixing the crime-fighting system or without providing job opportunities for these younger individuals. It is classic case of putting the donkey cart before the donkey. SN reported that some named to be pardoned had been convicted of serious offences. This ineptitude is terrifying. Clearly, criminals have become emboldened in the last few weeks to up their game and take what is rightfully not theirs from a cowering public.

The wholesale pardoning of criminals cannot be accepted in the current context.

Guyana’s prison population is around 2000, including pre-trial or remand prisoners. The remand prisoners are about 36% of the entire prison population or 720 prisoners, leaving convicted prisoners at around 1280 prisoners. The pardons from President Granger relate to the 1280 convicted prisoners. 60 pardons per year is about 5% of the convicted prison population put back into the general population every year. That is a problem in a country with a rising crime rate and high general unemployment, especially youth unemployment. Various studies have demonstrated that these collective sentence reductions or pardons do not decrease recidivism. One might also argue that collective pardon gambits like these may communicate laxity on criminality and in doing so, embolden criminals.

It is not fine for President David Granger to wake up one morning and be inspired to release 5% of the prison population into the general population without offering an explanation. The minor or juvenile percentage of the overall prison population will be small, so this pardon will probably target prisoners who are between 18 years and 25 years. Is that a group we really want to pardon without conditions? Where are the safeguards for the public from this measure? Why was no consideration given to shortened sentences to be achieved by meeting certain conditions such as good behaviour and internal skills training? Is there a parole monitoring system in place for these individuals?

What are the criteria for a pardon under this scheme and have these been published for examination? Has any consideration been given to behaviour while incarcerated? Is there a revocation clause for this pardon if the pardoned criminal re-offends? Has a study into recidivism been set up to research this initial set of pardoned criminals to determine whether the rate of recidivism from this group should deter future use of the presidential prerogative of mercy in this fashion?

 

Yours faithfully,

M Maxwell