Dear Editor,
Whilst there’s no reason to think that Guyana is amongst the worst countries where the incidence of sexual violence against children is concerned, we do have a problem in this area that is attributable more to a combination of socio-cultural normalized behaviour and a widespread lack of knowledge of the law amongst young males.
Whereas ignorance of the law is no defence to any criminal offence, as everyone is presumed to know the law which stems from legislation that is enacted in Parliament by representatives of the people, the reality in practice is that persons spend a minimum of 5 years studying to qualify as a lawyer – and even after all of that, no individual lawyer ever knows all there is to know in law. What a lawyer knows is how to access and process legal information for practical purposes.
A shocking percentage of 17 to 27-year-old males are completely oblivious as to the implications of engaging in sexual relations with girls under the age of 16 – and it would appear that the overwhelming majority while being aware that it is somehow wrong, are unaware that consent or even encouragement coming from the girl is completely irrelevant. This unawareness of the law extends of course to an awareness of the stiff sentences imposed by the Courts for this indictable offence, with the result that young men are finding themselves serving long prison terms during the prime years of their youth.
As opportunities for our youth expand with Guyana’s economic development, less young women will slot into the traditional man-dependent outlook that was heightened during the harsh economic times. Young women are accessing GOAL scholarships significantly more than their male counterparts, and job opportunities are increasing across the board. Our process of development is rapid but will not reach anywhere near completion overnight, so we have to address a culture wherein very young girls often mimic the widespread attitudes they see in young women and consequently often practice flirtatious behaviours with young ‘unaware’ males – including those whom they think might have something to offer them other than love.
Rape is a very serious criminal offence. Where the parties are adults the question of consent might be a live issue in many cases. In cases where the female (a male can also be raped) is a girl under the age of 16 consent is never an issue – so sometimes a young man in his late teens to early 20s can easily find that he has absolutely no defence to an allegation of rape in circumstances involving no grooming and zero force or threat of force. A law-focused sex education for boys in schools and lower sentencing tariffs for such offences might help.
The proposal for such specific education in schools is the easy one. The logic is easy to see. Let boys know from early on that sex under 16 is completely out-of-bounds not only for avoidance of pregnancy – for even using a condom to make the exciting act “safe” from STDs will not change its status as a serious criminal offence. The proposal to lower sentencing tariffs will need some explaining however.
Lower sentencing tariffs are suggested for younger accused only. Older men ought rightly to be presumed to have actual awareness of the law acquired over time, having been engaged in normal adult pursuits, and are also likely to have the benefit of experience as fathers, uncles and grandfathers to have acquired a proper perspective without formal teaching. They should continue to go to prison to repent their warped ways. Lower sentencing tariffs for young men might deliver some surprisingly positive outcomes however.
Boys will be boys. Knowing fully well that sex under 16 is completely out-of-bounds will not deter every boy. When a 20-year-old learns after the event that he could well face a sentence of 20 years for the offence, he thinks of having to spend his entire life all over rotting in prison. This triggers a kamikaze sense of purpose in the youngster; fight the case at all costs regardless of the evidence! Some Prosecution cases are so evidentially complete that there is no way that the accused will receive the benefit of a Not Guilty verdict. The hapless youngster then faces a 20.
If the sentencing tariff were less, a young offender would be rather more willing to consider pleading Guilty in appropriate cases – saving valuable court time and avoiding the court having to incur avoidable expenses such as subsistence payments to jurors. Guilty pleas also avoid having the Complainant relive a traumatic or perhaps shameful event that she would rather put behind her. A big upside to shorter terms would be the offender emerging from prison (with rehabilitative programmes in place) as a refocused person still young enough to present as an example to young males still at the age to be in the normal zone of barely underage females with newly active hormones. The 40-year-old fellow who is released from prison after serving say 15 years will not have any impact whatsoever upon youngsters 15-20 years his junior. A refocused ex-con aged 25-30 will be personally known by, or perhaps be an active role model to, some males 5 or even 10 years younger than himself. His punishment will thus have a relevant impact.
Guyana needs our young men to play their part in the nation’s infrastructural development. Whilst those who do wrong must be punished, the current policy-based punishment scheme needs to be revised to achieve current policy-based aims. The aim today should be to have as many of our young men in gainful employment as is possible. The jobs are there for the taking. We need all the “aware” young males in Guyana to be available to qualify themselves, whether by formal study or by on-the-job experience, to play their part in building Guyana and bettering their own lives.
Yours truly,
Ronald Bostwick
