A proposal by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) to rehabilitate children who commit murder instead of sentencing them to a minimum 20 years in prison is being supported by defence attorneys Kenneth Churchill Neita, Peter Champagnie, and Michelle Thomas.

In fact, Neita, who once contested the Manchester North Eastern seat for the Opposition People’s National Party, said that the minimum mandatory sentence being put forward under the Child Care and Protection (Amendment) Act, 2023 is a “panic reaction from a Government who has not been able to combat the monster of crime”.

“I have found that mandatory sentences do not act as a deterrent. I believe the judge should have some discretion, given the mitigating factors. It depends on the motivation, it depends on the exposure [of the child], it depends on their antecedents, it depends on how remorseful the person is,” said the veteran attorney.

UNICEF made its submission during last week Tuesday’s meeting of the joint select committee appointed to review and report on the Criminal Justice (Administration) (Amendment) Act, 2023; the Offences Against the Person (Amendment) Act, 2023; and the Child Care and Protection (Amendment) Act, 2023.

The UN agency’s stance clashes with the Government’s proposal to impose mandatory minimum sentences by amending associated laws to allow for harsher penalties for murder, ensuring that the penalty matches the severity of the crime.

Neita, though, said he doesn’t believe the “imposition of draconian laws” is going to solve the problem.

“The Government tends to do that [to] appease a discontent with the public. We have to do more than that. We have to try to improve the social conditions of the people, because poverty is the parent of modern crime. We need more counselling. Let us turn the lives around for a lot of young people who would be inclined to respond to the temptations of the community where they live,” Neita argued.

Champagnie agreed.

“There is always the temptation to think along the lines of saying that because one legislation imposes a penalty for a certain kind of offence that it stands to follow that the other offences of a similar nature should also attract the same penalty. That kind of thinking is dangerous, because firstly, no two cases are identical, and especially when you are dealing with young offenders,” Champagnie argued.

He said that the mandatory minimum sentencing regime, although proven to be lawful in terms of what the “recent decisions are saying out of the Privy Council and other courts”, is still dangerous.

“I think the important point that needs to be made is that we now have legislation that if a judge imposes a sentence that is manifestly inadequate, our prosecutor in Jamaica has the right to appeal. That has been demonstrated in recent times by a case that was tried in the Circuit Court,” he said.

“If the mischief behind it all is to prevent unduly lenient sentences which are out of reason with all common sense, and out of reason in terms of what the facts are, there is always that safety net which didn’t exist before,” Champagnie added.

He argued that the justice system should focus on deterring criminal activities by having an abundance of evidence against offenders through the use of scientific methods such as CCTV cameras, DNA, and fingerprinting.

That, he said, will boost the capabilities of the police force “where once somebody is caught and is brought before the court, there is very little option but to plead guilty because of the overwhelming evidence”.

“This happens in other jurisdictions,” he pointed out.

Champagnie added that emphasis must also be placed on prosecuting parents who neglect their children as these crimes do not happen in a vacuum and, as such, adults should be held accountable.

As it relates to rehabilitation, Champagnie said there is more work to be done.

“We can do much better than what we are doing now, but I don’t know that you are going to ever have a situation where there’s a hundred per cent improvement. Some persons just innately, in my view, [are] destined to give themselves to a life of crime. But certainly what exists now falls way short of what ought to be,” Champagnie said.

Thomas said she also agrees with UNICEF as children convicted of murder are not fully developed cognitively. Therefore, they should be given some leeway to change their lives.

“Rehabilitation would come in that fashion to assist and to guide. You can’t treat a minor the way you would treat an adult. So that amendment to the Child Care and Protection Act is putting the same standard of a minor with that of an adult. It’s [a] different mental capacity, it’s [a] different level of responsibility, it’s [a] different approach to life experiences, and so we, as human beings, we have to give some allowances for human growth and development,” she said.

Thomas said she believes the Government is trying every way possible to have a robust criminal sanction for people who come in conflict with the law.