Prison conditions and sentencing reform

The account recently given by attorneys who visited the state prisons detailing what they saw there should be a wake up call to all of those concerned about crime and justice and humanity.  The attorneys have noted, especially at the State Prison on Frederick Street, gross overcrowding, unsanitary conditions and primitive lodgings quite unsuitable to holding persons who are locked up for most of the day. At the very least it should offend all of us that slop pails are still in use in our prison system and that for the major part of the day human beings should have the decaying contents of these pails as a constant stench and companion.  In our haste to punish persons convicted of crime we often forget that a custodial sentence is intended to deny the liberty of the subject and not to dehumanise him.  We must recall that in countries espousing respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, the death penalty apart, the gravest form of action a state can legitimately take against its citizens, is the denial of their liberty.  

Further, these visits revealed that the conditions of persons being held on remand at the State Prison were in fact worse than the environment of those serving terms of imprisonment after having been convicted of an offence.  The majority of remand prisoners are there because they have been denied bail or are unable to raise bail.  Some are there pending the hearing of their appeal, which by their constitutional right to due process they are entitled to pursue. Yet others are there for failing to pay maintenance or child support. This majority has not been convicted of an offence but has pleaded not guilty and up to then, presumed innocent, while awaiting trial. Consider also, the statistics show, that most persons who exercise their right to plead not guilty will in fact be acquitted. The 2002-2003 Judiciary Report at page 94 noted that 204 cases were disposed of in that law term in the High Court.  Of those 204 matters there were 38 guilty pleas, 42 guilty verdicts the accused having pleaded not guilty and the case going to full trial, 94 acquittals and 30 discontinued matters, the charges either being dropped or a nolle prosequi being filed. 

Taking away the guilty pleas and the discontinued matters it means that 94 out of 132 accused persons actually tried were in fact acquitted, a startling 71.2 percent.  In the previous year of those cases going to a full trial, there were 141 acquittals and 80 guilty verdicts, an acquittal rate of 63.8 percent.  In the 2000 to 2001 law term there were 140 acquittals and 115 guilty verdicts, an acquittal rate of 54.9 percent. These figures take no account of the Magistrates’ Court where every criminal case is initiated and where the vast majority of cases, over 80 percent, are disposed of.  Taking account of the inadequacies of the investigation and prosecution process it would not be unreasonable to suppose that in the Magistrates’ Court there are comparable statistics percentage wise for acquittals. What this means is that every year we are subjecting scores of persons who will in the eyes of the law eventually be found to be not guilty of the crimes they have been accused, to oppressive and disgusting conditions.  For most of them they will indeed be changed.  The questions we must honestly ask ourselves are whether they would be changed for better or for worse and in what danger we place ourselves when we eventually release such persons back into society.

In terms of the nature of cases a large number involve the simple possession of drugs.  Many drug users are incarcerated awaiting trial simply because as addicts they often have put their families behind them or they have exhausted their resources and are unable to pay a fine.  Magistrates and Judges at present have no other real sentencing alternatives except bonding the individual.  Where a bond is imposed there is no supervision of the offender and many persons might well return to their previous conduct.  They then end up back in the court system as repeat offenders where invariably a custodial sentence would then be imposed.  The result is that they head back to the prison system with little chance at rehabilitation. 

Regarding victim crimes, most victims justifiably feel much dissatisfaction with the overuse of the bonding option simply because they feel that the justice system has given no consideration to the hurt and trauma they have suffered.  They often feel that the offender has simply “gotten away with it” not having to confront the consequences of his conduct. Quite apart from convicted and accused persons our prison officers are also forced to work in close proximity to the same conditions prisoners undergo.  We would do well to consider what stress levels prison officers face and the extent of domestic violence abuse that perhaps occurs within their homes.

Those observations should jolt us all to action.  It is encouraging that the prison authorities are now talking the language of restorative justice or victim offender mediation.    Regrettably, any such programme is bound to fail in the absence of significant improvement to prison conditions.  The offender cannot begin to think of the consequences his act has caused to a victim and about giving reparation to his community when he is made bitter and resentful about the dehumanising conditions under which he is kept.  Faced with the possibility of being advantaged by hardened offenders in the prison system a younger offender may likely seek vengeance on the society that has allowed this by its failure to act. 

Parliament must give urgent consideration to widening the sentencing options available to our judicial officers.  To do this is not to be soft on crime at a time when most citizens are gripped by the fear of becoming the next victim statistic.  It is recognition that in 2004 we cannot continue to go on as we are.  It is to understand that each offender has gone against a societal norm for a particular basket of reasons and that the court in arriving at a just sentence must have the sentencing tools to find the right combination that would punish or rehabilitate, or, in most cases do both.

Ronnie Boodoosingh
Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago