-Continued-
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
Our Commission has given a great deal of thought to the question of corporal punishment as a sanction against crime and as a deterrent. The general public has been asked their view on a particular radio talk show and the tabulated reviews indicated that a majority of callers in the ratio of 2 to 1 are in favour of corporal punishment.
The Commission was divided on this issue, but the majority are in favour of corporal punishment in addition to jail terms (for shorter periods for certain particularly reprehensible crimes and for the punishment of minors as an alternative to sending them to a correctional institution). The following paragraphs under this heading reflect the majority opinion.
The Commission considers that corporal punishment would be a powerful deterrent to crime and would also prevent, to a large extent, the repetition of crime, particularly in the case of young offenders. We are not in favour of any form of punishment which would inflict serious bodily injury and such punishment need not be too severe, for its effectiveness does not depend so much on the amount of pain as on the psychological suffering caused by humiliation and shame.
Our Commission takes the position that in the order of gravity, the crime of rape ranks next to homicide. This position is based on the conviction that in addition to the physical pain suffered by the victim, which may be considerable, there is the psychological pain, which is incalculable. With a view to deter the committing of this crime and, to discourage in the strongest possible way its repetition, we recommend that Justices be given the discretion to impose on offenders a sentence of a severe form of corporal punishment in addition to a term of imprisonment. For the law to be as effective as possible and, at the same time, for the public’s sense of natural Justice to be satisfied, it is important that the penalties for this offence be not automatic but for us to rely on the discretion of our Justices, as indeed we must, in making the right decision. This is necessary because the circumstances surrounding this type of crime and the condition of the parties involved may vary to a considerable degree.
We consider that corporal punishment should be imposed in the following and similar circumstances:
(i) Where the victim has been kidnapped or abducted.
(ii) Where physical violence apart from the act itself, has been threatened (by a weapon, for example) or used to compel the victim’s compliance.
(iii) Where the victim is a child and the offender is an adult.
Authority figures are essential to the proper upbringing of children so that they are made to understand at an early age that certain types of behaviour are unacceptable. Not only do these actions cause displeasures and disapproval on the part of the person or persons responsible for their upbringing but they result in punishment of diverse forms, which according to our Belizean customs and traditions include corporal punishment. Such punishment being meted out is well in order of responsibilities by the male parent – the first authority figure that the child encounters which helps to shape him/her into future law abiding citizens.
Therefore our opinion in considering the reintroduction of corporal punishment for young offenders for particular types of crimes does not follow in the same course as in respect to adults. Because here we are dealing with individuals whose behaviour in most cases is a direct result of a lack of discipline and the molding influence of authority figures in their lives, who have no respect for authority, their elders or the law, no regards for the rights of others or consideration for anybody’s feelings but their own. They are the product of their environment and the lack of parental or institutional guidance or control.
It is recommended, therefore, that the same offences for which offenders were given corporal punishment in the past be reintroduced. Proof of the effectiveness of this measure could be determined within a short while, six months or less, and our legislators could decide if it should be kept in force or rescinded.
We note that the government of Barbados, which has reintroduced the use of the cat-o-nine into its penal system, has been the subject of criticism by international human rights activities, lawyers and administrators on the grounds that it constitutes cruel and inhuman punishment, although none of the constitutions of CARICOM countries specifically excludes this form of punishment. Moreover enlightened opinion as expressed in the report of the United Kingdom advisory council of 1960 on the treatment of offenders is “that those offenders who would be least harmed by corporal punishment and who would be likely to benefit from it are also those who would be likely to benefit from other forms of treatment.”
Perhaps, countries at a similar stage of development in their institutions have been too prone to follow the lead of our much more advanced societies, for example the United Kingdom, in matters like the subject which we have been reviewing to our detriment. The penal system of the United Kingdom is a model we may aspire to but will not be able to put in place for many years to come. In the meanwhile, we must accept the status quo and so exercise our judgment with a view to obtaining the best possible results.
In the absence of studies, which relate to our history, culture and traditions, we have to rely to some extent on the consensus wisdom of our best minds (which should not exclude those of the common people). Taking these into consideration the Commission recommends the reintroduction of corporal punishment for certain crimes (but not the use of the cat-o-nine tails or similar instruments) and we so recommend.
PROBATION
There is a definite need to establish an adequate and efficient probation system which would deal with persons on suspended sentences or who are bound over and also prison inmates. This should be developed and coordinated between the Ministry of Social Services and the Ministry of Labour, Public Services and Local Government (being responsible for the prisons). The object would be to:
(a) Monitor the observance of conditions of sentences imposed by a Court.
(b) Assess the rehabilitative progress of convicted persons.
(c) Set up and administer an efficient parole system.
(d) Assist the convicted persons in advice on their education development and rehabilitation.
PRISON
The Commission views the establishment of a new prison site as not only a crucial but an indispensable step in the fight against crime. The site is located on the Hattieville/Boom road and appears ideal for the development of a prison which will serve the country effectively. There is room for development and space for the prisoners. The Commission was impressed with the dedication of Superintendent Adolphus and his ability to contain the Belize City prison facility, which is nothing less than a time bomb. Amazingly, in the abysmal conditions existing, an education program has been started and sporting activities are a feature of prison life. Rehabilitation is recognized by the Superintendent as a fundamental function of the prison and the Commission recommends that the experience, knowledge and enthusiasm of the Superintendent be utilized to the fullest in the planning, establishment and development of the new prison. An expanded prison will allow greater separation between remanded and convicted prisoners and also various categories of criminals.
Rape – In Camera
Having regard to the nature of the offence, the pain of a victim and the desire for privacy the Commission recommends that rape cases should be held in-camera. This, no doubt, will encourage victims to report the crime.
JUVENILES
The Juveniles Offenders Act contains provisions designed to keep juveniles separate from adult criminals and involve parents in the fulfillment of sentences imposed on convicted children and adolescents. The Court may sentence a “child” (defined as being under 14 years) to a place of detention and a “young person” (defined as being under 14 to 15 years inclusive) to prison. Young persons sent to prison should not (as the law declares) be allowed to associate with adult criminals. The Commission believes that once such persons are sent to prison their association with adult prisoners cannot in practice be avoided and they should instead be sentenced to a Juvenile prison, which is usually termed “Correctional Institution.” The Commission also recommends that the definition of “Young Persons” in the Juvenile Offenders Act be extended to include 16-year-olds.
The Supreme Court should have a reserve power to sentence to the main prison such conditions as the judge sees fit, a young person who by nature of his crime or otherwise is shown to be dangerous to the Society.
HABITUAL STEALING
For too many people in this society, stealing is not a crime but the means by which they may obtain and enjoy things that others have and they are unable to buy. They have adopted this attitude because there are many more successful cases of thievery than those where the criminal is brought to justice. This is an extremely dangerous state of affairs, for if the citizen is unable to enjoy what belongs to him or her, he will eventually lose the desire to work hard.
The rising tide of crime is mainly responsible for the disorder in our society. We can see it in the attitudes of motorists who pay no attention to traffic laws, in the prevalence of obscenity, in the disregard for the rights of other citizens, in the lack of consideration for others’ feelings and in the almost total absence of good manners and courtesy.
As a first step we have to deal severely with habitual offenders. Thieves will steal over and over and over again. A private citizen in one of the public hearings reported that he surveyed the records of a group of prisoners and found the following:
(i) 82% of these surveyed had 3 or more convictions
(ii) One prisoner had 47 convictions
(iii) One inmate had 3 convictions and his last sentence was less than the previous two
The Commission recommends that sentences for crimes of larceny be progressive and that an individual who commits the same type of crime for three times should receive special treatment, including classification as a habitual thief and perhaps psychiatric with a system of evaluation to determine his fitness to return to society.
RECEIVERS
The law already deals severely with those persons who purchase stolen goods and those who are in the business of buying and selling the same, when they are caught. But, we have to conclude that the law is largely ineffective, judging by the few cases of offenders who have been brought to justice, which have come to our attention. It behooves the justice system, therefore, to develop a strategy to deal with the receiver whose crime may be even more parasitic than the theft itself since his willingness to dishonestly receive fuels the demand for stealing.
The elements of the strategy would be a matter for the Criminal Investigation branch and the prosecution. However, the Commission recommends that the law enforcement agencies adopt a policy, particularly for first offenders, of taking account for the purpose of sentencing, any information or assistance of the offender in leading to the arrest and conviction of the receiver.
To be continued