SEVERAL days ago, it was reported in the media that the Juvenile Justice bill is expected to go to the National Assembly in October. Minister of Public Security, Khemraj Ramjattan, stated that the ministry is waiting on the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) to finish a cost analysis on the bill before it can be tabled.
This bill is one that has been in the works for several years. First beginning under the PPP/C administration and now under the coalition government. I know diplomacy and bureaucracy often involve a lot of red tape, but the pace on this bill has been remarkably slow.
The bill addresses several pressing matters such as increasing the age of criminal responsibility from 10 years old to 12 years old. The possibility of the age of responsibility rising to 16 is also being explored. If that is a serious position though, I am sure that it might be a hard-sell, but at no point should the age remain at 10. Criminalising 10-year-olds is a violation of international children’s rights standards and is almost illogical in its implementation and it is a shame it has remained this long. Ten-year-olds cannot work, consent to sex or even watch an R-rated movie without adult supervision, yet they are given criminal records that follow them throughout their lives.
Having children face full culpability at that stage of their lives runs counter to all the evidence which relates to the cognitive and emotional development of children as it relates to controlling their impulses. Yes, there is truth in the theory that children do know the difference between right and wrong. However, ethical understanding is not something that one just acquires. It takes time and improves with conceptual maturity, something that a 10-year- old will most likely not have.
Another thing that the bill is aiming to remove is the ‘crime’ of wandering. Children found without a proper guardian, even those trying to escape dangerous home environments, are often brought before the courts under the Juvenile Offenders Act and charged with wandering. These children are then sent to detention centres. Parents have even been known to send difficult children to these centres if they are tired or unable to care for them. While it was initially designed to ensure children were being taken care of by guardians, the law is now being used to selectively punish them. Detention homes and centres should only be used as a last resort.
Commissioner on the Rights of the Child Commission, Nicole Cole, had pointed out that some 70 percent of the juveniles housed at the New Opportunity Corps (NOC) in Region Two are there for wandering.
Often, those who end up in these situations are often vulnerable children who are victims of circumstance. The majority of offenders grow up in homes stricken by poverty, instability and/or abuse. Instead of sending them to institutes for young offenders, we need to take other measures such as counselling.
This in itself is a hard task, given the dismal lack of certified counsellors in Guyana, but the effort must be made to rehabilitate and not imprison children. Also, because these children often come from impoverished or unstable homes, they are unable to effectively deal with the situation as they might lack the means to pay for better lawyers. So obviously, there is a class aspect to the imprisonment of children, where the poor are further systemically punished for being poor.
We have a tendency in Guyana to pass much-needed bills and laws without implementing them. This is definitely a step in the right direction, but we need to stop falling short of implementation and demand better.