Parliament
Balford Henry Jamaica Observer
Sunday, November 16, 2008
THE House of Representatives spent two days last week debating the controversial issue of capital punishment, but will not vote on the motion until Tuesday or, possibly, Wednesday.
The length of the debate will depend on how many more MPs want to speak. When Speaker, Delroy Chuck, adjourned the debate last Wednesday to deal with some other matters, it was obvious that several others wanted to speak.
It has been a very emotional debate so far, with members supporting or opposing the retention of capital punishment seated on both sides.
For example, while Opposition MP, Dr Patrick Harris (North Trelawny) and Government members Joseph Hibbert, Laurie Broderick and Ernie Smith (South West St Ann) spoke passionately in support of retaining the punishment, Opposition MP Phillip Paulwell (East Kingston and Port Royal) and Government MPs Horace Chang, Gregory Mair (North East St Catherine) and Everald Warmington (South West St Catherine) were strongly opposed.
The motion, which is being debated, was moved by Prime Minister Bruce Golding last Tuesday and reads as follows:
"Whereas it is provided by law that the maximum penalty for murder in specified circumstances is death, and whereas contrasting views exist among the public as to whether the death penalty should be retained or abolished;
"Be it resolved that this Honourable House: (a) affirms its support for the retention of the death penalty as specified in the Offences Against the Person Act; or (b) declare its support for the removal of the death penalty as specified in the Offences Against the Person Act."
Explaining why the motion was so worded, Golding admitted that "it is one of those very rare resolutions". He said that, in all his years in the House (since 1972), he could not recall any previous resolution being framed in that way.
"A resolution asks for either yes or no. (But) we couldn't do that in this case because, in order to do that, we would have had to put a question which favours one side or the other of this issue and then invite a yes or no answer," he pointed out.
The vote could be taken on Tuesday, and it seems very likely that it will be overwhelmingly in favour of retaining capital punishment. However, the issue will then be, how?
There is some confusion, however, in terms of how the debate is proceeding. While it is supposed to be a conscience vote, the Opposition seems to be substantially following a party line as far as its amendment is concerned.
In fact, senior spokesman Robert Pickersgill and Leader of Opposition Business, Derrick Kellier, have already made it clear that the party wants the amendment voted on.
The Opposition's amendment states:
"Be it further resolved that the Constitution of Jamaica be amended to remove the five-year stricture in relation to the carrying out of the death penalty after conviction, and also that the rulings of the Governor General's Privy Council concerning the prerogative of mercy cannot be inquired into in a court of law."
Under this amendment, the Governor General's Privy Council in Jamaica would have the final say in granting pardons, reducing sentences or referring cases back to court for further review.
The government considers this an attempt to replace the Privy Council in London as the final arbiter.
This development threatened to stall the debate. Pickersgill insisted that the Opposition would not continue without an undertaking to deal with the issue of the Privy Council's five year stricture from the Pratt and Morgan trial.
Golding's first response was that the reason for the cases stretching beyond five years was the slow Court process. But, he felt that this can be addressed by the reform process, including the increased number of judges and courthouses as well as the application of technology which the government has been pursuing.
It is obvious that Goding's position has not satisfied the Opposition.
Both sides discussed the issue last Wednesday prior to the sitting and reached a compromise. But even the compromise is not clear to all members.
Golding said that it is based, primarily, on the need to ascertain the will of the House on the issue of capital punishment prior to debating specific intent.
"What is agreed, is that the debate will proceed...with a clear commitment that, in the event that a final vote is for the retention of capital punishment, we will support the position for an amendment to the constitution to facilitate the extension of the five-year period," he added. He pointed out that if the vote is against capital punishment then there would be no need for the amendment.
Kellier confirmed that this was the agreement, but, it is still unclear how the Government will deal with it. Will they support the Opposition's proposal re the Privy Council, or will they come with their own proposals?
Posted in
- Login or register to post comments
- Download PDF
- Printer-friendly version
