Death penalty no longer mandatory for convicted murderers
The death penalty stays, but is no longer mandatory for convicted murderers, and an alternative of life imprisonment is now possible with the passage of the Criminal Law Offences (Amendment) Bill and unanimous support, yesterday, in the National Assembly. The Amendment, piloted by Attorney General Charles Ramson, essentially sought to provide for the sentencing of persons convicted of murder committed in certain circumstances.
It seeks to amend a section of the Principal Act by specifying the circumstances under which any person convicted of murder shall be sentenced.
Murder of security forces members are expected to attract the death penalty, in addition to several other ‘categories’ as stipulated in the amendment. 
The amendment also seeks to insert a new section into the Principal Act which provides the form of sentence for every person who is convicted of murder.
However, while the House gave its full support for the Bill, it was not passed without scrutiny and debate by the opposition side of the House.
Ramson noted that the amendment is significant and would advance fundamental changes that are needed.
He added that the death penalty is much of a human interest issue, a fact manifested in several frameworks and conventions, expressly those advanced by the United Nations.
The Attorney General stressed that bringing this amendment to the National Assembly is in keeping with the current administration’s respect for human life and dignity.
He said there is a need to recognize the sanctity of life.
However, Alliance for Change (AFC) Member of Parliament, Khemraj Ramjattan, debunked this sentiment and suggested that Guyana is only now making such a move because it is buckling to international pressure, more particularly pressure by “donor agencies.”
However, he applauded the current administration for finally seeing “reason” and having the amendment passed.
Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee dismissed Ramjattan’s arguments and stated that seeking to deduce “sinister motives” behind the amendment was not the way to go.
People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) Member of Parliament Mrs. Clarissa Riehl, countered this and observed that much of the legislations that have passed though the National Assembly do not seem to have the desired impact.
She stressed that there are several areas that need addressing, including the classification of murders, which would attract the death penalty.
She noted that there are some circumstances which are not included, such as murder in domestic violence cases.
Riehl said murder under circumstances such as piracy and hijacking should be included under the amendment.
She pointed out too that the inclusion of life imprisonment as a sentence for murder should clearly specify that the sentence is for a decided number of “calendar” years, since Prison Authorities can interpret this otherwise and can impose the sentence of “prison years,” which is approximately eight months.
The PNCR Member said too that there needs to be more training among law enforcement ranks, especially when considering the gross corruption that persists among police and other security forces.
One of the points that she stressed was the fact that the amendment seemingly encroaches on the authority of the trial judge.
Member of Parliament Mohabir Anil Nandlall disagreed, and noted that the amendment does not encroach on any party’s authority, rather is provides an option, the alternative of life imprisonment instead of the death penalty, based on the circumstance.
He explained that the amendment is much needed to address the conflict that plagues the society and to find a balance among the competing interests.
Nandlall pointed out that there is a high crime rate, particularly murders, and almost as a natural consequence, society is calling for the execution of the death penalty.
The other scenario is that internationally there is a global shift away from the death penalty, plus the many international human rights agencies that are advocating for the abolition of this penalty.
In any democracy, Nandlall said, these views cannot be disregarded and he stressed that the government of the day is obliged to find the most common ground among these competing interests.
He explained that the law must be used as a mechanism to do that, to find that balance and bridge the gap between these competing interests.
He noted that in 1996, the Court of Appeal made a suggestion for such a move, to pacify the harsher punishments so that they fit the circumstances.