The introduction of the new gun Bill was a turning point for law enforcement in this country. It also represented a turning point for our lawmakers, who for years had avoided legislation that appeared to be harsh and punitive in nature.

I guess it was the end of an era; an era that had life sentences at seven years, guaranteed discounts for guilty pleas, fines for gun possession, and a slap on the wrist for hurting people and destroying lives. Finally, our Parliament grew a backbone. Maybe it members actually stopped feeling guilty for what their peers did to us in the 70s.

This Bill was really needed. Let me explain with an example. There was a guy convicted in the early 2000s for a .38 revolver. He served three years in prison. Some years later I charged him for an M-16 rifle. He got eight years. I remember thinking the next time I charge this guy he’s going to have a bazooka.

This new gun Bill doesn’t play that. Had the noted guy been charged in this era for a handgun I would’ve never got to charge him for a rifle, because he would be spending 15 years in prison.

Had he been charged and convicted for the rifle he would’ve been gone for 25 or life, especially because it was his second conviction. This is how you deal with predators.

his same man is going to be released very soon. He is going to kill maybe several times before he is brought to justice. He needed to be destroyed and put away forever from the first time he was held with a handgun.

The second gun he was held with is capable of killing a mile away, destroying bulletproof vests and can fire 30 rounds in under three seconds. Just imagine that in their hands. Thank God the lunacy has ended and the lunatics who brought it upon us are largely behind us.

Although no law passed by our Parliament is created by one person alone, I believe this law should be credited and be part of the legacy of Marlene Malahoo Forte, the former minister and Attorney General. Most of the readers will never truly understand how important this law is and how much she contributed to its creation.

In the earlier case that I had cited, the judge could do no better because he was restrained by something known as “sentencing guidelines”. This basically created the sentencing structure that a judge could use and could set the stage for a convicted man to appeal the sentence.

Well, the mandatory sentences of this gun Bill are so harsh, the judge doesn’t have to be draconian; he just has to follow the law. Harsh, life-ending, life-altering, cruel, call it what you will. This is the type of language you come to expect when you are discussing finding a tool to save thousands of lives, because you are combating a group that has created tens of thousands of deaths.

There is no place for tenderness when you are dealing with groups of men who will kill babies, who in fact have killed babies and women and children and old men, and have killed by the tens of thousands.

This is not an exaggeration if you are to count the amount of murders that have taken place since our Parliament ended the Suppression of Crime Act in the 90s. Don’t use an abacus because you will lose count. It will number in the tens of thousands.

It is that ‘flower’ era of our Parliament that brought about a culture of accepting murders and treating killers like victims. That era created the Independent Commission of Investigations (Indecom), that era brought about mandatory discounts and sentencing guidelines that allowed killers when caught with guns to pay a fine out of their left pocket and laugh at the system.

There have been and always will be unfortunate incidents that come about because of legislation. And with harsh consequences. One is that gunmen are firing rather than allowing themselves to be caught. This comes with the downside of police officers being hurt or killed and innocent civilians being caught in crossfires. There is also the issue of more of them being killed because they chose to attempt to kill lawmen. That, however, is a decision they took and the consequences are their own fault.

I am, however, concerned about the legislation and how it affects licensed firearm holders who may simply make mistakes and have a few rounds extra that they legitimately bought and don’t even remember they are in some drawer in their house that puts them over the limit.

I agree it’s carelessness, but anything that results in good people going to prison is a bad thing. So maybe we need to tweak some aspects of the gun Bill.

Licensed firearm holders are not criminals. They have gone through a probe that the KGB could learn from. Prison is for criminals, so anything that could cause a licensed firearm holder to go to prison for years for a mistake has to be re-examined — not because they are better than anyone else, but simply because they are not criminals and prison is for criminals.

Remember the judges can’t use their discretion. They are virtually imposing a written document. If they had discretion they would not imprison a licensed firearm holder for a mistake.

There is a misconception that the judges were handing out silly sentences for gun offences. This is not so, it is the sentencing guidelines and the mandatory discounts that tied the hands of the judges.

Taking discretion from a judge is a blunder. There has to be a human behind decisions that impact human beings.

Fifteen years for a water gun that you didn’t even remember you had that your child used to play with 10 years ago is not justice; it’s just plain cruel. That needs to be changed.

There is a section of the gun Bill that speaks to various reasons that can cause you to be ineligible for a licensed firearm. One is that if you are arrested for domestic violence you are ineligible to be granted a firearm licence. You don’t have to be charged, you don’t have to be convicted, you don’t even have to spend a day in a cell; you only have to be arrested.

This isn’t reasonable. Individuals are falsely accused all the time. If it doesn’t even result in a charge, then how can it be a must and bound denial?

This has to change. This doesn’t feel like justice.

So I didn’t say the gun Bill is perfect. It is perfect in the sentences, I just don’t want it to be mandatory because Jamaican judges don’t require shackles like that, and we as a people are better than that. We are far too intelligent to abandon discretion.

It is perfect for its treatment of criminals. I just don’t want it to destroy good people making silly mistakes because we are human and we will make errors.

The realisation of the issues that are created by the mandatory designation and the incredibly long sentences simply means that the police officers and the prosecution need to do their part by exercising their discretion because the judges have lost theirs.

A police officer is not bound to charge for every offence he detects. He has discretion. He can choose not to charge or he can refer to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) for a ruling. The prosecution can also choose to discontinue any case it desires at any time.

Rather than let a good man go to jail for a miscount or an innocent man languish in prison over a water pistol, it would be more prudent if the ODPP doesn’t bother to prosecute these cases until the law is amended.

We are doing well. We are turning back the clock that started in the 70s, when both sides of our Parliament chose ‘violence’ over dialogue. The gun Bill has been a major contributor.

Let us fix what needs to be fixed and continue to benefit from it ‘til Jamaica is once again the pearl of the Caribbean.

Feedback: drjasonamckay@gmail.com

Marlene Malahoo Forte.

Judges can’t use their discretion. They are simply imposing a written document. .