Latest update April 25th, 2024 12:59 AM
Apr 17, 2016 Letters
Dear Editor,
I have found myself disagreeing with the actions of this government which I support and thank God every day came to power in May 2015. I think Mr. Granger is among a small number of nationalist residing in Guyana who are most suited for the office of President at this time. But even as I support him I have found; amount other things; that I disagree with him on some criminal justice issues and especially with his philosophy on pardons for offenders. I have said in previous letters that while I agree on the need to pardon some non-violent offenders I do not agree with how he seems to conceive this process should be under taken. I also indicated that the pardoning of criminals cannot and should not be divorced from redemption for the persons and communities they have wronged or offended. Holding that mothers should be home taking care of their children and merely on that ground pardoning female criminals is not good enough and misleading in its assumptions.
In Stabroek News of 9th March 2008 I shared with readers the result of a research I did with 92 students at the New Opportunity Corps. In that study I found that of the 92 students I spoke with only 13 came from homes in which their fathers were present, the remaining 79 came from female headed homes – headed usually by mothers, aunts or grandmothers. Also in the said letter of March 9th 2008 I referred to findings of the famous social scientist Dr. Dobson who after years of research concluded, “Sons of single mothers are at greatest risk for violence, apparently because they spend less time with their fathers.” If we accept these findings the President’s action of pardoning convicted and imprisoned mothers because of his expressed concern for the children of these mothers, might have been misguided. At least in the case of sons, the president might have been better advised to pardon imprisoned fathers.
Recently the President was reported as having expressed how heartened he was at receiving a “thank you card from one of the 11 mothers who were pardoned by him.” I understand his joy and I hope all 11 of the pardoned mothers make good use of their second chance. However I would have preferred to also hear from the president on what has been done to restore to wholeness the lives of the victims of the crimes perpetuated by these pardoned criminals. I would have loved to hear that at least the victims of the crimes committed by pardoned convicts were informed of the president’s intention to pardon those who did them wrong. I would have loved to hear that representatives of the president met with victims to explain to them why he was giving the pardons and their support of his action sought. True most of the victims might not be convinced to support his actions, but at least by meetings with them the office of the president would have shown respect for the victims. This is what the President does not seem to get – justice cannot be achieved when wrong doers are pardoned while victims are left unattended. There is nothing moral about forgiving wrong doers and ignoring those damaged by the acts of the said wrong doers.
Mr. Editor this brings me to the recently established Advisory Council on the Prerogative of Mercy. As I understand it this council’s duty is to advise the president on the implementation of capital punishment. However based upon reported comments of the president the Advisory Council will also be relied on to offer the president guidance on other criminal justice matters including presidential pardons generally. If my assumption is correct I am forced to ask why then is an entire half of this 6 man (including the chairman) council made up of trained lawyers? Further the constitution says one member of the council shall be a doctor, this I can understand, but who are the other members? What specific skills and knowledge do they bring to this Advisory Council? Is there a sociologist among them? Was the Guyana Association of Social Workers invited to have a representative on this council? Is any of the council’s members trained or have worked in corrections/rehabilitation? If the answer to these questions are no then will a representative of the government kindly explain why not?
Mr. Editor, this is one occasion that cries of an absence of skills cannot be offered as an excuse. In Guyana there are a number of persons trained in sociology and social work. From this distance it seems to me that on criminal justice issues the president needs help. I am convinced that he means well, that his intention are laudable but he certainly seems to be wanting on the best socially acceptable alternatives that can be used for achieving his goals. For example persons awaiting trial and denied bail and persons who have committed crimes that many feel should not carry a penalty of prison time can be
The President needs at his disposal advisory councils which have among their members’ persons with knowledge in the area of correction/rehabilitation. I know there is at least one person with this knowledge and experience presently living in Guyana. I read some of the offerings on criminal justice done by one Pastor Jeffrey, it is my understanding that he worked in the prison system here in the USA. As a person schooled in the area of Criminal justice I am mostly impressed with his writings. I think he and persons like him, can be of enormous use to the President in what he is trying to achieve as it relates to corrections/ rehabilitation. I wonder, was Pastor Jeffrey invited to be a part of this Advisory Council?
Claudius Prince
Jagdeo giving Exxon 102 cent to collect 2 cent.
Apr 25, 2024
By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – The French Diplomatic Office in Guyana, in collaboration with the Guyana Olympic Association and UNICEF, hosted an exhibition on Tuesday evening at the...Kaieteur News – Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo, the General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party, persists in offering... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]