‘Pleasure’ in prison sentence

ONCE upon a time, persons convicted of murder or manslaughter but declared insane were either sent to jail or the mental institution “at Her Majesty’s pleasure.” After TT became independent, the confinement in such cases were ordered “at the President’s pleasure.” Last year, in accordance with a previous decision of the Privy Council, Justice Alan Mendonca changed the sentence imposed on Chuck Attin to be imprisoned “at the court’s pleasure” after the juvenile — he was under 18 at the time — had been found guilty of the Westmoorings murders. The Privy Council had based its ruling on the principle of the separation of powers which removed any responsibility or authority from the State or the Executive to determine the length of sentences imposed on persons convicted of murder or manslaughter, declaring this a matter that should strictly be the function of the court.

Until now, however, such sentences imposed on “insane” persons invariably amounted to confinement for the rest of their lives either in prison or at the St Ann’s mental institution. It seems a grievous oversight on the part of the State that until two young attorneys, Mark Seepersad and Gerald Ramdeen, took up their cause, these convicted men remained languishing in prison or the mental asylum for years without any kind of review or assessment of their cases or  condition, inspite of their repeated requests. The meaning, it appears, of  “Her Majesty’s pleasure” or the “Presideent’s pleasure” had, ironically enough, nothing whatever to do with “pleasure” but was, in fact, the terrifying condemnation to a rest-of-life incarceration regardless of the possibility of recovery or rehabilitation. As a society with pretentions to being just and civilised, we are pleased that positive and fruitful action is now being taken to rectify this form of “pleasure.”

Last Friday, two men who had been convicted for murder, declared insane and kept in prison for the last 18 years “at the President’s pleasure” succeeded in their constitutional motion before Justice Humphrey Stollmeyer and will now be entitled to an assessment of their mental condition. The judge ruled that the failure of the State to conduct such review was a breach of their right not to suffer arbitrary detention. Such an examination will determine whether George Noreiga and Edmund Funrose are mentally fit enough to be released from prison. In similar cases, eight convicted persons who have been confined at St Ann’s — one for as long as 36 years on “Her Majesty’s pleasure” — are now asking the court to declare that their detention is unconstitutional, illegal and void.

Concerned about this form of injustice, where such prisoners have been denied the right of review, this newspaper has repeatedly appealed for the release of Felix James whose cause, we believe, is a particularly deserving one. James, now 50, has spent the last 33 years of his life behind bars, the country’s longest serving prisoner. At the age of 17, he stabbed his girlfriend to death in a fit of rage, was found guilty but insane and sentenced to be kept in prison “at the President’s pleasure.” Since then he has been forgotten in the prison system, making unavailing petitions for review inspite of his exemplary conduct and deep regret. Having regard to the circumstances of his crime, his state of mind at the time, the length of time he has spent in jail, his excellent record as a prisoner — he was commended for bravery for rescuing an officer in 1991 — and the honesty of his personal testimony, James, we believe, now deserves to be given his freedom. Where is the mercy of the Mercy Committee which has granted pardons to more cold-blooded killers as part of TT’s independence celebrations? In any case, is it not time for the Court to review James’ sentence?