THE RELEASE THIS WEEK of convicted murderer Arleigh James, after serving 22 years behind bars, has rekindled the debate about the process of deciding who should benefit from “early release” and exactly what should be the standard for such a privilege after one has been convicted for taking the like of another.
In the case of James, he did not take one life, but two – a mother and daughter – and in most brutal and horrific circumstances. For all we know, those who worked with and assessed this convicted killer may be absolutely right that he is in fact be a reformed man, and as he told DAILY NATION reporter Heather-lynn Evanson, he may truly be sorry for his crimes.
None of that, however, is likely to be easily accepted by those who were personally harmed by James, either physically by his cutlass or emotionally by the sight and aftermath of his actions.
It is for these reasons that we join with all those concerned Barbadians who have been quite vocal in stating that Government has a moral and social obligation to explain how they arrive at a determination of which of these killers should be released – even if it is under no legal obligation to do so.
Barbados has changed dramatically since Independence and the unquestionable acceptance of what might have been the norm or whatever was said by some charismatic leader no longer washes with a significant portion of the population. If there is a more pronounced move toward a softer, more forgiving society and the leaders and experts in social behaviour believe there are national benefits to not hanging as well as to the release of previously violent persons who have been reformed, fine.
What cannot be acceptable is the perpetuation of a modus operandi that says “we have treated him, we have assessed him, we are going to release him, and we don’t have to tell you anything more than that”.
It may be beneficial to take some lessons from the experience of the post-Apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission that was used to promote healing in a troubled South Africa.
It certainly was not a case of officials simply declaring “Let there be healing!” Quite often victims and perpetrators met under the same roof to express their most inner feelings before any restorative action could be taken.
There may be no need for us to go this far in Barbados, but at least this small community ought to be told who is up for release, provided with a report card on their conduct and activities in prison and, above all, given a clear picture of the process. Anything less will continue to fuel the mistrust that now characterises the release of any convicted murderer.
Just as importantly, the system has to pay special attention to the victims. Whether it was intended or not, one can’t help but get the impression that in the whole criminal justice system the victim and his or her rights take second place.
From complaints that trials start and even conclude without the families of the murdered being notified, sentences without any opportunity for the families of the victim to speak and now the consistent release of murderers without even the courtesy of alerting the victims’ families, ought to suggest we are operating a criminal justice system that is increasingly falling out of favour with the population.
By its very definition, a system can’t be “haphazard” and yet that is exactly what we have evolved into as suggested by the manner of the release of James, and before him Oliver Archer and Peter Bradshaw.
Again we reiterate that if convicted prisoners have reached the stage where their release is merited and of no threat to the community to which they are being returned, then by all means release them, but let it be done through a system that is transparent enough to engender the support of Barbadians generally, and at least the respect of the “victims”, even if not their agreement.
