The Editor, Sir:
The approach of the Privy Council to the interpretation of our constitutional provisions relating to the right to life and the death penalty, over time, impelled one of its judges, Lord Hoffman, to warn his brethren, in a compelling and prophetic dissenting judgment, that, if they continued on the course they had adopted, it would cause instability and lead to serious problems for the administration of criminal justice in the Common-wealth Caribbean. Here in Jamaica, for sure, his words have long come to pass. Consider, for example, the following scenario:
1. The majority of Jamaicans are in favour of the death penalty as the punishment for certain crimes and they continue to blame 'the Government' for not having the punishment carried out. No one wishes that a 'rift' between the people and the authorities, on any score, should continue; it causes instability.
2. The members of Jamaica's Parliament, by an overwhelming majority in a conscience vote, have endorsed the sentiment that the penalty should be retained in Jamaica.
3. The Privy Council rejects the idea that the five-year stricture that it has laid down for the penalty being carried out should be relaxed to take account of delays normally involved in the disposal of applications to human rights bodies.
4. The Opposition and the Caribbean Court of Justice (in its judgment in the Joseph and Boyce appeal from Barbados) disagree with the position taken by the Privy Council on this issue. So the clear choice for the Parliament is to do something about the five-year stricture imposed by the Privy Council or insist that Jamaica subscribe to the CCJ, whose integrity, like that of the Privy Council, cannot be questioned.
5. It is now proposed that all of the provisions of the Charter of Rights, including the right to life and other sensitive issues, are to be passed and adjudicated upon by the Privy Council and it is being said that nothing should be done by the Parliament concerning the death penalty five-year stricture. Indeed, in some quarters, the contrary stance being taken by the parliamentary Opposition, according to a view expressed in Thursday's Gleaner editorial, is referred to as "regrettable political opportunism". As we say in Jamaica, "Life hard". Lord Hoffman was right!
Further than that, my colleague, Anthony Gifford, asserts that we "disagree on many things, not least the morality of the death penalty as a punishment".
I have, several times over, publicly stated my position, that I am not in favour of the death penalty. My contribution and my answer in the conscience vote debate in the Senate, last November, again underlined that sentiment. I am certain that my colleague shares the same view. Lord Hoffman was bang on with his prediction. The approach of his brethren has even caused my colleague to "disagree" with me on matters on which we agree.
I am, etc.,
A. J. NICHOLSON
Opposition Spokesmanon Justice
.mkv_000108708.jpg){kind=spacer}
.mkv_000109059.jpg){kind=spacer}
.mkv_000113988.jpg){kind=spacer}
.jpg)
+(Light).jpg)
1 comments:
i thought he was in favour of the death penalty.
Post a Comment