The reaction from some quarters to the recent reflection was defensive and unsurprising but stands in direct contrast to the reaction in similar quarters to the possible release of several prisoners whose cases have come up before the Mercy Committee for review.
There are clearly several among us who argue virulently that we are a Christian society and later demonstrate by reference to their attitude on forgiveness, the extent to which they believe that Christianity is “meal to be served à la carte” allowing the diner to avoid the central virtues of love and forgiveness.
In this instance, the recent wave of prisoner releases will shortly test our willingness to forgive the “sins” of some persons who have committed some rather heinous crimes. The gravity of their offences cannot be understated and neither can their state of mind when they committed these offences.
Regardless of whether murder is committed in the course of a robbery or as a result of domestic violence, it is not to be taken lightly and demonstrates that for either a brief or extended moment, the perpetrator surrendered a necessary human quality.
To say that a person has surrendered a quality that is central to their humanity, however, is not to say that such a person ceases to be human from that point onward or is beyond redemption.
Many among us appear not to understand that our justice system is directly largely at the objective of reform, which can be expressed as an appreciation that a criminal’s act reflects the temporary surrender of critical human values and the role of the justice system is to help the criminal regain such values.
Influence
There are, of course, other reasons why a person would be incarcerated and two of the more popular are retribution and the protection of others. These objectives are equally important and even the liberal (such as myself) understand that criminals must be treated in a way that protects the innocent and allows society to feel avenged.
Over time, however, the reform objective has emerged as the primary focus of our justice system. It can be argued that this perspective is influenced by the New Testament, but it is also clear that there are substantial secular benefits. It is the reform focus that helps us to understand the inherent limitations of vengeance and moreover the extent to which an obsession with vengeance ultimately eats away at our societies internally. Similarly, it is that focus which helps us to understand that many criminal acts are symptoms of deeper societal ills which need to be addressed if we are to prevent the incarceration and punishment of several more criminals over time.
It is against this background that the international community has more recently been frowning on both the death penalty and the concept of “whole life” sentences, since both of these represent a fundamental rejection of any possibility of reform. The death penalty remains an option in Barbados for the time being and the extent to which it is inconsistent with reform is simple to understand since you cannot reform a corpse.
The matter of “whole life” imprisonment has, however, been somewhat more complex for us to understand. To this end it is useful to reflect on recent opinions of the European Court of Human Rights which grappled with the question of “whole life” imprisonment and concluded that such a sentence is inconsistent with a modern appreciation of human rights unless there is a domestic mechanism for the periodic review of such sentences.
It would now appear as though our Government is seeking to achieve similar objectives by reference to the Mercy Committee which is now considering the release of several prisoners who were condemned to death and later had their sentences commuted to life. It certainly seems reasonable that a sentence which mandates that a person “rot” in prison is an automatic admission that there is no possibility of reform or forgiveness and as such is inconsistent with a modern understanding of the principles of human rights and values.
It is entirely possible that after a period of reflection, a criminal could understand the error of his ways and be equipped to return and make a positive contribution to our society. Should we, therefore, not see the release of such a person as a reflection of our justice system’s success instead of an indication of its failure?
Peter W. Wickham is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES). email: peter.w.wickham@gmail.com