The Judicial System in the Bahamas - Essay Example

Repeat Offenders’ Right to Bail Should be Waived Concrete actions have to be immediately implemented in order to pull the plug of the swelling crimesituation. The most significant of these measures is the waiving of the right to bail of repeat offenders. Bahamas is no longer the same country that has been known before for its peacefulness and serenity because of the upsurge in the incidence of crime. If we wish to see this country rise from morass and decay in which it is sinking in, we must implement drastic measures that would curb criminality. Now, Bahamas is being plagued with problems related to crime, prompting many people to become fearful for their lives and properties. What makes it even more unfortunate is the fact that this problem is now badly affecting one of the country’s major sources of revenues, which is tourism. An article in the Washington Post even said that “this island nation finished 2009 with record 87 murders - a statistic (that) tourism officials probably wont be trumpeting” in their ads. (March 14, 2010) Among the causal factors of this situation that is pointed out is the country’s problem with its bail system. Many law enforcers and prosecutors have admitted that unless rules in bail are amended, even the suspects of heinous crimes can easily avoid being jailed or even prosecution. Attorney General John Delaney had “acknowledged that a growing number of people on bail are allegedly committing other crimes.” (Rolle) He said this while he was batting for the amendment of the Bail Act. Among the proposed amendments are the restrictions of the right to bail of those suspects of heinous crimes as well as those that have been repeat offenders. In the current conditions, the proposal to waive the right to bail of repeat offenders is indeed urgent. It is the immediate remedy to the decay that Bahamian society is suffering because of crime. Therefore, amendments in the Bail Act in order to facilitate the said provision are of utmost importance. While there may be other long-term solutions towards the problem of crime, waiving the rights of repeat offenders to post bail is of urgent value. It should not be subjected to debates whether this will truly end the crime problem. Instead, it should be seen as a necessary measure to put on the brakes on the soaring crime rate. It is bewildering to see certain sectors in Bahamian society and some lawmakers expressing opposition to the move to amend the Bail Act in favor of more restrictive options. Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham, for his part, believed that the proposed amendment is valid and urgent. In an article in the Bahamas Post, he said that some believe “that bail is a right and that there is nothing we can do to prevent persons from being placed on bail.” (May 26, 2010) It is just reasonable that the Prime Minister vehemently considers such idea as very wrong. Nevertheless, the motion for amending the Bail Act has ignited a new debate within Bahamian society. We, however, believe that the Bail Act must indeed be adapted to the current situation. In particular, its provisions on repeat offenders should be changed in order to ensure that they will no longer be able to easily apply for bail. One of the three main points related to this argument is that the soft nature of the Bail Act is no longer suitable to the worsening crime situation in the country. The Bail Act’s leniency was appropriate only during that time when Bahamian society was not yet beset with crime. It is logical that it be amended because laws are supposed to be changed or repealed when these are no longer applicable to current conditions. Besides, with stricter provisions in the amended Bail Act, crime will be discouraged. Second main point supporting the argument is that previous offenders are the likeliest to commit crimes again. Therefore, those who are on bail and are the real perpetrators are free enough to conduct felony. Since they have not undergone rehabilitation, the chances of repeating the offenses are higher. Worse, they have the opportunity to strike back at their accusers and captors. In response to those who insist that bailing is a right, the right of the public is superior to the individual right to bail. In fact, the law should ensure that suspects who apply for bail should not pose threats to the public. It must also be clear that Bail Act amendments do not violate the right to bail but ensures the safety of the public. The Bail Act must reduce the possibility of abuse committed by bailed suspects. The lenient characteristic of the Bail Act is no longer suitable to the current crime situation in the Bahamas. This law, which was formulated and passed in 1994, was created at a certain historical context when the peace and order situation in the country was still much better. Since lawmakers normally introduce policies in accordance to concrete objective conditions, it is convenient to say that the Bail Act and all its provisions were suitable to the times. However, when compared to similar laws of other countries, especially the more industrialized ones during the 1990s, this turned out to be very lenient indeed. According to the provisions of the Bail Act, one of the major and more common grounds for denying bail to a suspect undergoing trial is if the court deems it possible that the person in question would “fail to surrender to custody or appear at his trial; commit an offence while on bail; or interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether in relation to himself or other person.” (Bail Act 1994) In this and all the other provisions mentioned in the Bail Act, the case of repeat offenders is not cited. In the early 1990s, during the time when the current law on bail was still being subjected to debates among lawmakers, Bahamas crime rate was still very low although there were already signs that it would increase in the future due to several social factors. However, laws are not written by just basing on forecasts. The Bail Act’s relaxed nature during the early years of its implementation was still suitable to current conditions. However, as soon as policymakers and government, in general sees that a certain law is no longer sufficient or adequate in order to enforce peace and order, they should immediately seek its amendment or repeal. We assert that laws are not permanent and infallible dogmas. We believe that these are changeable and changes must be made in order to satisfy the demands of new situations. We insist that only through the introduction of amendments or of new provisions can the original intent of the law be still carried out under different circumstances. In the case of the Bail Act, only by inserting a clear provision on the restriction of bail rights to those who are already repeat offenders can crime be discouraged. A sterner provision on those who are applying for bail is the only way that the relevance of the Bail Act in this current time can be still upheld. The reason why a restrictive provision against repeat offenders should be included is that most potential criminals are those that have already committed various felonies before. This is true to both those who have served prison sentences for past offenses and to those who have not yet been apprehended and put on trial. These are the individuals who are more likely to have the daring to commit crimes because they had gotten away with those they had committed before or, based on their experience with the Bahamian justice system they had realized that the penalties of such felonious acts are not severe. On the other hand, those that are truly guilty of crimes but have successfully manipulated bail through the lenient provisions of the law can develop the concept that it is fine to commit crimes. Repeat offenders are the most dangerous of all those who can apply for bail. Recidivism is a worldwide phenomenon. In a study made by the United States Department of Justice in 2002, it was found out that 67.5% of the prisoners who were released in 1994 were “rearrested for a new offense (almost exclusively a felony or a serious misdemeanor).” (Langan and Levin 2002) If the commission of offenses again is very high among those who have been penalized, it can be worse for those who have committed crimes but have not gone through any rehabilitative process. They are more prone to commit crimes. This is another reason why we firmly believe that the Bail Act must be amended. The amendment is necessary in order for the judiciary to provide restrictions on granting bail to repeat offenders. We consider such provisions urgent in order to prevent these individuals, who are out on bail, from having the opportunity to strike back at their accusers or captors. All these facts and trends should be considered by the lawmakers so that an improved law on bail is created and imposed. Opponents to the proposed amendments to the Bail Act argue that we are infringing or violating the human rights of individuals who have not yet been convicted of crimes. To this, we say that society and the majority must be protected from a possibly criminal-minded few. The proposal to amend or to introduce provisions in the Bail Act that will deny repeat offenders’ motion to bail may be considered as a limit imposed on their rights. However, the right to bail is an individual right, which means that it is of less importance to the right of the public to protect itself. The state or the Bahamian government has the obligation to guarantee the safety of the majority of the people from predators in society such as criminals on the loose because they have posted bails. While suspects indeed may have rights to fair trial, the public too has the right to be provided with security not just by law enforcement agencies but by the entire justice system. We affirm that the right to end bail ends when the security and well-being of the greater public is at stake. Government data further explain that crimes are actually being committed by individuals who are out of prison because of bail. In a 2007 press release, national security minister Tommy Turnquest “cited statistics indicating that in 2006, 35 percent of suspects charged with murder were on bail at the time they committed the offence, and between January and September 2007, 42 percent of murder suspects were on bail at the time of the offence.” (Bail Statistics Show Spike in Releases) Nearly half, in fact a rising number, of murder suspects were obviously repeat offenders, individuals who managed to commit another heinous crime even while they are still on trial for the previous ones they had committed. These figures could only support our argument that repeat offenders’ bail rights should be immediately forfeited. The opposition must realize that the propose amendments to the Bail Act do not violate the right to bail but it guarantees the right of the majority to be protected from crime. We do not wish to deprive individual suspects of their wish to be free while trials are still going on and the amendments should still see that such rights will remain enshrined in law. However, in order to maintain peace and security for the public, those who are considered as repeat offenders should waive such rights. It is; therefore, clear that the right to bail will still be respected. Nevertheless we maintain that safeguards from abuse of this right will have to be instituted through the Bail Act amendment. Prime Minister Ingraham aptly puts it that “the only time you cannot deny bail is when the person has not been tried within a reasonable period of time, but there is no such thing as an absolute right to bail, notwithstanding what anybody else says.” (Thompson) Unlike the basic human rights, the right to bail is certainly not inalienable. It can be granted only to those that society deems as deserving while it can be deprived from those that are considered as threats to the greater good. The motion to introduce changes in the Bail Act in order to restrict the granting of bail to repeat offenders has met opposition from sectors who remain doubtful about the Bahamian government’s real intent, who consider this as a threat to human rights, and who analyze the problem from another perspective. The political opposition, as expected of their role, has expressed skepticism about the ruling party’s objective with the proposed amendments. Opposition leader Philip Davis, who is also a member of the Bahamian parliament, said in a privilege speech that “I understand the cries out there about persons on bail but I dont know if the answer out there is to amend the Bail Act… We are dealing with the problem at the wrong book end.” (Bahamas Weekly) Davis points out that what should be done by government is to first guarantee the hastened pace of court proceedings. It is good that the political opposition in the country joins the ruling party in appreciating the gravity of the crime problem. However, in pushing for another cure, they have also contributed to the delay in the problem-solving process. Political disputes should first be set aside in this regard and the welfare of the people should be the primary focus of all parties. The issue here is not who pushes the amendments but what good it brings to Bahamian society. If the improvement of the Bail Act is the solution to the crime wave that is hitting the nation, the political opposition should not block it. If the opposition is truly concerned with the well-being of the people, it should not obstruct attempts even by its political foes to implement policies that would reduce crime. As for those who think that the amendments will violate the human rights of the repeat offenders, they should also consider the welfare of the vast majority. In an editorial of The Freeport News, the proposal of amending the Bail Act is accepted as valid although it also points out that the Bahamian government must also “look into why those accused of murder have to wait so long before their case is taken to court and prosecuted.” (Will Amendment to Bail Act) There is no argument to the validity of such a statement from The Freeport News editorial board. However, the problem here is that this also ignored the more urgent steps that need to be taken. It merely pointed out at another angle of the crime problem and introduced a perceived appropriate solution. Ultimately, such method of solution peddling only leads the Bahamian policy-makers to choose freely from an array of cures coming from a variety of sources instead of identifying the strategic ones from the tactical, the short-term and urgent measures from the long-term and gradual ones. The Freeport News editorial may have good intentions though, just like the rest of Bahamian society who wish to see solutions to crime being implemented. However, instead of emphasizing on the strategic cure, what is currently most needed is public and legislative consensus that will result in urgent amendments on the Bail Act, particularly in provisions regarding the application and granting of bail to repeat offenders. It would indeed be foolish to push for a general overhaul in the justice system that could not be done in the shortest time while the crime rates continue to soar due to the liberties granted to repeat offenders. The irony is actually similar to letting the victim bleed while waiting for the suspect to be captured and brought to trial. It is like firemen investigating the cause of a fire while doing nothing to control its spread to another part of the building. Overhauling the justice system may be good as it will ultimately prevent crime rates from soaring in the future but this should not become an excuse for letting the current crimes go unstopped. Keeping repeat offenders off the streets by restricting their rights to bail alone may not be the strategic solution. However, its urgency is paramount. In fact, its value may not be strategic but tactical. Nevertheless, no strategy could be won without the support of brilliant tactics. If the battle against crime must strategically won, waiving the rights of repeat offenders to bail is a tactic that should be employed immediately. In a democracy such as the Bahamas, we contend that the greater good is definitely more significant than those of the few. There are others who also perceive that the problem is the slow court proceedings. This may be a valid concern but this is definitely the angle that should be emphasized on if the objective is to prevent crime. Obtaining justice for the victims is one thing while preventing crime is another. In fact, crime prevention through bail restrictions for repeat offenders will lead to drastic reduction of the number of people victimized. It may be true that the justice system is slow and this problem deserves to be addressed too. However, while steps toward solving this predicament have yet to be taken, we insist that something has to be done already in order to prevent the incidence of crime from continuously rising. We must immediately focus preventive actions towards those who are most likely to commit crime, the repeat offenders, themselves. One of the most important measures that need to be taken is the waiving of their rights to bail should they be suspected of committing crimes again. If Bahamas must continue to progress as a nation, one of the key requirements it must comply with is peace and security for its people. High crime rates, however, will hamper the growth of society, badly affecting not only the people but also the economy. We have to pursue steps that must be taken to solve the problem with crime and one of these is by effecting laws or amending those already existing in order to prevent the number of incidences. The restriction of bail rights of individuals who have committed criminal offenses repeatedly is not just a minor improvement of the judicial process but a matter of national survival and social stability. If chronic offenders roam the streets of Bahamas because they are on bail, security is definitely compromised. However, if such felons are kept in jail while court proceedings are being hastened, the country will surely be on the path to unhampered development. Works Cited "Bail Act, 1994." The Commonwealth of the Bahamas. Retrieved 27 September, 2010. . "Bail Statistics Show Spike in Releases in 2006." Bahamas Information Services October 28, 2007. Retrieved 27 September, 2010. . "Coming and Going: Violent Crime is up in the Bahamas." The Washington Post March 14, 2010. Retrieved 19 September, 2010. . Davis, Philip. “Remark on Resolution Thanking the Governor General on the Speech from the Throne.” Bahamian Politics. The Bahamas Weekly May 5, 2010. Retrieved 25 October, 2010. . Ingraham, Hubert. "Prime Minister Speaks on Bail and Crime in the Bahamas." Bahamas Post May 26, 2010. Retrieved 20 September, 2010. . Langan, Patrick and David Levin. Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report June 2002. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved 27 September, 2010. . Rolle, Krystel. "AG Says Bail Changes Necessary." Nassau Guardian April 16, 2010. Thompson, Taneka. “Holding People Charged with Murder for up to Three Years may be unconstitutional.” The Tribune July 5, 2010. Retrieved 25 October, 2010. . “Will Amendment to the Bail Act Fix the Crime Problem?” Editorial. The Freeport News April 19, 2010. Retrieved 25 October, 2010. . Read More