Sentence does seem light for horrid offence
Dear Editor,
I have a great deal of sympathy for the dismay expressed by Carmen Clarke, in her November 8 letter, at the somewhat light sentence handed down recently with respect to a convicted rapist.
The view that currently prevails in Jamaica is that it is constitutionally wrong to provide in legislation for mandatory minimum sentences with respect to convicted offenders.This is because it fetters judicial discretion with regard to the sentence to be imposed.
It is somewhat ironic that no one seems to complain when legislation imposes a maximum limit on a sentence that may be imposed, as it does in all instances of penal legislation, even though that also fetters judicial discretion with regard to sentencing.
I believe that the prevailing view is misconceived. Society should be entitled, through its legislature, to indicate its emphatic denunciation of certain types of criminal conduct, and this approach has been supported in Canada and South Africa, though the courts have required that in setting a mandatory minimum sentence the legislated minimum should not result in a sentence that is disproportionate, having regard to the circumstances of the offence and offender.
In the UK, there is provision for mandatory minimum sentences with respect to certain offences, but there is provision for a judge to go below that minimum if there are extenuating circumstances, and he is required to state those circumstances in open court when handing down sentence.
I do not know if Justice Fraser found any mitigating circumstances in the offence and the offender, but I have to say that in the absence of such circumstances being stated, the sentence seems light for such a monumentally horrid offence.
Geoff Madden
2A Strathairn Avenue
Kingston 10
gbrmadden@yahoo.com