Letter of the Day | Where is the village to grow our youth?
Published:Thursday | December 5, 2024 | 12:07 AM
THE EDITOR, Madam:
The nation has been rocked by a recent viral video of a group of teen boys sexually assaulting a schoolgirl. Initial investigations by the Child Protection and Family Services Agency (CPFSA) revealed that the group of male students allegedly lured the schoolgirl to a house, where she was sexually assaulted and the act recorded. No doubt, this has left the country in a state of shock; and even more so, the victim has been traumatised for life.
This writers cannot help but wonder, what could cause impressionable, vulnerable and immature boys to commit such a vile act? Did the proverbial ‘village’ fail these boys in teaching proper morals and values? Did naivety or a lack of wisdom play a part in these boys making this very foolish decision? What is certain is that they, too, may have to suffer the consequences of their actions, however misguided they may have been.
The offences for which they have been charged are certainly very serious. They range from rape, forcible abduction, to knowing and producing child pornography. Pursuant to Section 6(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act, it prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment for rape. This means that if found guilty of rape, a judge is not empowered under the act to sentence them to less than the prescribed 15 years’ imprisonment. Many may therefore ask themselves, is a sentence of 15 years for the offence of rape excessive and unjust in these circumstances? Some may even share the view that this deplorable act deserves a much harsher sentence than 15 years’ imprisonment, given the unspeakable trauma that this situation may inevitably cause the victim.
USEFUL GUIDANCE
Against this backdrop of the mandatory sentence of 15 years for the offence of rape, the recent Court of Appeal decision of JP v R [2024] JMCA Crim 39 sought to provide useful guidance as to how the court may approach a matter involving crimes committed by children.
In that case, JP, a minor, was convicted for the offence of grievous sexual assault, which carries with it a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment. The trial judge, having sentenced the appellant to 15 years’ imprisonment, subsequently issued a certificate pursuant to Section 42K of the Criminal Justice (Administration) (Amendment) Act, 2015 on the basis that, in her opinion, the prescribed mandatory minimum sentence was manifestly excessive and unjust in the circumstances. The trial judge opined that she would have imposed, instead, a sentence of 17 months’ imprisonment with parole eligibility after 11 months. This was on the basis that when considering all the circumstances of the case, the mitigating factors far outweighed the aggravating factors.
The sentencing judge must consider several factors in exercising his discretion to issue this certificate. The judge will have to consider the social enquiry report which will be used to indicate to the court the background of the offender, and any personal circumstances of the particular individual. Further, the judge will have to take into account the age–both at the time of offending and at conviction; any connection to the age and immaturity of the offender; any previous conviction; and the potential negative impact of what a lengthy prison sentence could have on the offender. In the case highlighted above, the offender, at the time of the offence, was 13 years old and at the date of sentencing, 17 years old. BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD
The court is also guided by Section 65 of the Child Care and Protection Act, which makes it abundantly clear that the court must have regard to the “best interest of the child”. Sentencing a child offender to 15 years, some may argue, is not necessarily in the best interest of the child. In the case of A v R, at paras 23-24, Brooks JA (as he then was) made reference to author DA Thomas and his work, Principles of Sentencing, which discusses the implications of youthfulness in the sentencing process and adopts the principles that ‘‘youth is one of the most important mitigating factors’’ therefore, a ‘youn g offender is usually treated less severely than an older man in similar circumstances’’.
Will a mandatory 15-year sentence provide the necessary rehabilitation? The circumstances of this particular case is quite disturbing, and one could argue that it is a representation of the current moral decay of our youth, and our failure as a society to raise children who have the emotional intelligence, empathy and good common sense to avoid making such poor decisions. On whose shoulders does the responsibility of growing good citizens lay? Are we expecting that the correctional officers in our prisons can ‘correct’ what parents, teachers, pastors, coaches and neighbours have failed to do?
Frankly, our prisons are likely to expose them to more criminality, violence and abhorrent behaviour. We must, as a nation, be reminded that ‘it takes a village to raise a child’, lest we allow our youth to serve long prison sentences in lieu of proper guidance. Perhaps this gives credence to a quote by Frederick Douglass, that “it is easier to build strong children, than to repair broken men”.
MATTHEW HYATT &
STACEY KNIGHT
Associates at Knight, Junor &
Samuels
Attorneys-at-law