Crime judiciary’s responsibility too

THE EDITOR: Our Constitution, which forms the foundations of the State, establishes three important arms of governance, the legislature (Parliament), the executive (Cabinet headed by a prime minister) and the judiciary. Each is endowed with particular responsibilities and, in my opinion, carries no lesser weight than the other. Each has an intricate duty in not only playing its part in nation building, but also solving the problems which plague our society and prevent us from progress.

No problem looms over us as a nation as heavily and as urgently as the regional scourge of crime, fuelled by local thugs and gangs and the transnational illicit drug trade. However, it seems to me that while we place the heavy burden and responsibility on parliamentarians and ministers on solving the crime problem and bringing us relief, no one appears to be calling upon the judiciary to fulfil its roles and responsibilities to us citizens in this war against crime.

It was instructive to me recently when I heard the Prime Minister read out, at his constituency conference in Diego Martin, the punishment on our law books for serious offences such as gun crimes. These ranged from ten years in prison to 25 years for re-offenders, and even life in many cases. These harsh penalties are in place for many serious offences and form part of our laws, created by our legislators and supported by the executive arm of the State.

However, when I look at the reality of the application of these laws and especially the penalties imposed, it is hardly ever the case that criminals feel the full brunt of the law. It seems that the judiciary, in its discretion, often does not see it fit to impose these harsh sentences on those accused found guilty, when it comes to many heinous gun crimes, gang offences, kidnapping, assault, breakings and other all-too-familiar crimes.

I am left asking myself, is there a disconnect in the perception the judiciary has of our society and the reality that citizens are living in? How bad does it have to get for the judiciary to take a firm stance against convicted criminals?

This is even more evident when I see the ease with which criminals are granted bail, again at the discretion of judges, for serious offences. Serial reoffenders easily access the revolving door of our criminal justice system, only to be placed back on the streets in a perpetual cycle, to terrorise citizens once more.

Greasing this revolving door, from my perspective, seems to be the judiciary itself and the discretion which judges exercise in the leniency offered to criminals, when it comes to the application of bail and giving sentences.

With constitutional responsibility comes accountability and with crime bending our society to the breaking point, citizens are holding our legislators and ministers to account and demanding action. However, the judiciary cannot be so sacrosanct that we the people cannot scrutinise its actions and demand that it alters its approach to meet the needs of our society.

I call on the judiciary to wake up and appreciate our reality by conducting some serious introspection and re-examining its role in fixing the crime problem in TT.

RAJIV HEMANT

San Fernando