BREAKING NEWS, JAMAICA! JAMAICAN LAWYERS DEMONSTRATE FOR CRIMINALS

JAMAICAN YOUNG POLICE

10 minutes ago

9 min read

My Jamaican people, WHAT ARE WE WATCHING?

At a time when Jamaica has spent decades burying mothers, fathers, police officers, soldiers, children, and innocent citizens because of the gun, members of Jamaica's legal profession have taken to the streets over the Firearms Act.

And now they plan to withdraw their services from the criminal courts for an entire week, beginning Monday, September 28.

So today, Jamaican Young Police is asking some uncomfortable questions.

WHO BENEFITS?

When Parliament says that certain firearm offenses carry a mandatory minimum of 15 years, and lawyers say judges need greater discretion, who ultimately benefits if those sentences can be reduced?

And here's my bigger question:

HOW MANY YEARS IS A JAMAICAN LIFE WORTH?

Don't misunderstand me. A lawyer has every right to challenge legislation. Lawyers are supposed to defend constitutional rights. And these attorneys say specifically that they support strong laws against people who use illegal firearms to murder, rob, terrorize, and intimidate Jamaicans. They argue that judges need discretion because every firearm case is not identical.

Fine!

Today, we're going to examine that argument today.

Because the victims deserve to be part of this conversation too.

What about the shopkeeper staring down the barrel of a gun?

What about the mother whose son never comes home?

What about the police officer approaching a man holding what appears to be a firearm?

What about witnesses terrified into silence?

And what about ordinary Jamaicans who have spent years asking their Government to get illegal guns off the streets?

Justice Minister Delroy Chuck is now making that counterargument essentially: the scales must account for victims as well as accused persons.

So this discussion isn't:

LAWYERS VERSUS GOVERNMENT

It's bigger than that.

It is:

WHAT DOES JUSTICE REQUIRE IN A Country BATTERED BY GUN VIOLENCE?

Jamaica, stay with me.

Because today we're putting the lawyers' argument on one side, the Government's argument on the other—and the Jamaican people right in the middle.

JAMAICAN YOUNG POLICE: THE EDUCATED CLASS MUST ANSWER TO THE PEOPLE

I want to begin with something fundamental.

Education does not place anybody above scrutiny.

A university degree doesn't mean your argument is automatically correct.

A law degree doesn't mean Parliament cannot disagree with you.

A title doesn't mean ordinary Jamaicans must remain silent while professionals attempt to change legislation that affects public safety.

And, equally, being a defense lawyer does not make somebody a criminal.

That's an important distinction.

My criticism today is directed at their position and proposed action, not at declaring these attorneys criminals.

Because there is something extraordinarily important is happening in Jamaica right now.

Members of the Jamaican Bar Association, the Advocates' Association of Jamaica and other attorneys protested outside the Supreme Court.

Their primary target?

The mandatory sentencing provisions of the Firearms (Prohibition, Restriction and Regulation) Act, 2022.

The lawyers argue that the mandatory minimum has taken too much discretion away from judges. They have raised concerns about proportionality, guilty pleas, court congestion, imitation firearms, and licensed firearm holders.

And now their advocacy could move from placards to something much more consequential.

Withdrawing criminal-court services for a week.

That is where I believe Jamaicans have every right to ask tough questions.

WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE LAWYERS ASKING FOR?

Before criticizing somebody, represent their argument accurately.

That's what we're going to do.

Their position isn't simply:

"Let the gunmen go."

That would be inaccurate.

The lawyers say they support tough laws against gun violence. Their statement specifically supports punishment for people using illegal firearms to murder, rob, terrorize, and intimidate citizens.

Their argument is essentially this:

Not every firearm-related case has identical circumstances, so judges should have discretion to distinguish between them.

They point especially to imitation firearms.

Look at the sign being carried during the demonstration:

"A REAL GUN AND AN IMITATION GUN ARE NOT THE SAME THING."

That argument is worth discussing.

Someone carrying a cardboard imitation in circumstances having nothing to do with a crime is plainly different from someone carrying a loaded illegal handgun while committing a robbery.

And reporting earlier this year highlighted disputes involving imitation weapons, including concerns that rigid application of the legislation could produce extreme results in unusual circumstances.

So, yes:

There are legitimate legal questions here.

But that doesn't end the discussion.

It begins it.

WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SCALE?

Here's where I challenge the legal fraternity.

You have explained the accused person's rights.

Now tell Jamaica about the victim.

When an imitation gun is pointed at a shopkeeper's head during a robbery, does that shopkeeper know it's fake?

When somebody puts what appears to be a firearm against a woman's body, does she experience imitation fear?

When a police officer sees what appears to be a gun coming from somebody's waistband, does that officer have the luxury of conducting a laboratory examination before deciding whether his life is threatened?

Even the Director of Public Prosecutions, while supporting greater sentencing flexibility, has acknowledged that imitation firearms can be used to intimidate people, facilitate serious crimes and provoke potentially lethal responses.

That matters.

So there are really two propositions here.

An imitation firearm isn't physically equivalent to a functioning firearm.

Correct.

But an imitation firearm used deliberately to convince a victim that he is about to be shot can still create enormous danger.

Also correct.

A sensible justice system has to recognize both truths.

WHY DID PARLIAMENT CREATE A MANDATORY MINIMUM?

This is the historical question I want Jamaicans to remember.

Laws don't emerge from nowhere.

The Firearms Act took effect in November 2022, against the background of Jamaica's longstanding gun-violence problem. The legislation established severe penalties for firearm offenses, including mandatory minimum provisions.

Now ask yourself:

Why would elected lawmakers deliberately restrict judicial discretion?

One argument for mandatory minimum sentencing is consistency.

The principle is simple:

If Parliament determines that a particular crime has become an extraordinary threat to society, Parliament can establish a sentencing floor.

That means one judge cannot impose three years while another gives fifteen for materially comparable conduct.

Critics respond that consistency can become rigidity—and that exceptional circumstances require flexibility.

That's the real dispute.

Not:

Do you like criminals?

But:

Who should have the final authority over the sentencing floor—Parliament or judges?

That is a serious constitutional and policy debate.

NOW WE COME TO THE WALKOUT

And this is where my strongest criticism begins.

The lawyers protested.

That is their right.

They wrote letters.

That's appropriate.

They met with the Government.

That's appropriate.

They made submissions.

Again, appropriate.

But now lawyers are maintaining their intention to withdraw criminal-court services from Monday, September 28 through Friday, October 2.

I have a problem with that.

Because who uses the justice system?

Not politicians alone.

The Jamaican people.

Victims use it.

Witnesses use it.

Families use it.

Police officers use it.

Accused persons use it.

And lawyers themselves use it.

The lawyers say arrangements will be made to minimize prejudice to accused persons, victims, witnesse,s and other court users.

Good.

But Jamaicans can still legitimately ask:

Why should access to criminal courts be disrupted because Parliament hasn't changed a law quickly enough for one professional group?

That's a question the legal profession should answer.

AND HERE IS THE IRONY

The attorneys themselves complain about court backlogs.

They say the mandatory minimum reduces incentives for defendants to plead guilty, which causes more trials and contributes to congestion.

There is substance behind that concern.

Jamaican Bar Association President Tenneshia Watkins argues that if somebody gets the same minimum after pleading guilty as after going through a trial, the legislation reduces the incentive for an early guilty plea.

Chief Justice Bryan Sykes has also raised concerns about the relationship between mandatory minimums, guilty pleas and Gun Court backlogs.

That's evidence Jamaicans should consider.

But here's my challenge:

If you're concerned about a backed-up justice system, how does withdrawing legal services for a week help the backlog?

That deserves an answer.

You cannot complain that cases aren't moving quickly enough and then take an action that could prevent cases from moving.

Maybe the attorneys believe short-term disruption is necessary to produce long-term reform.

If that's their position, explain it to Jamaica.

But the public has every right to challenge it.

THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY

Justice Minister Delroy Chuck has pushed back.

He says he has to balance the scales, and that means considering victims as well as accused persons.

That's an important principle.

Government cannot write criminal law exclusively from the perspective of prosecutors.

Government cannot write criminal law exclusively from the perspective of defense attorneys either.

It has obligations to defendants.

It has obligations to victims.

And it has an obligation to protect the public.

Chuck also says the Government remains open to dialogue while emphasizing Jamaica's gun-crime problem.

The attorneys met with him Thursday.

No final position was reached.

The lawyers say they didn't receive the timetable or assurances they wanted, while Chuck characterized the discussions as productive and said proposed changes would receive further consideration.

Those are the facts as they stand.

BUT SOMETHING ELSE SHOULD MAKE EVERYBODY THINK

This isn't simply:

Defense attorneys versus everybody else.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has also supported greater flexibility in appropriate cases.

That's significant.

The DPP prosecutes defendants.

Yet the DPP's office has said the law should allow appropriate penalties based on individual circumstances.

The Chief Justice has raised concerns.

The defense bar has raised concerns.

And the Government itself has acknowledged that parts of the legislation warrant changes.

Therefore, I cannot responsibly tell you:

"Everybody asking for changes is supporting gunmen."

The evidence doesn't establish that.

But professional consensus doesn't automatically settle the policy question.

The Jamaican people have a voice too.

HERE IS MY CHALLENGE TO THE LAWYERS

If you want the public behind you, don't simply tell Jamaicans what is wrong.

Show them exactly what you would replace it with.

Put your proposed amendment before the Country.

Tell us:

When should a judge be permitted to go below fifteen years?

How far below?

For what circumstances?

What happens when an illegal firearm is loaded?

What happens when it is used in a robbery?

What happens when somebody possesses an illegal firearm but claims he wasn't planning to use it?

What constitutes an "exceptional circumstance"?

Who defines it?

What appellate safeguards would exist?

And how do you prevent sentencing from becoming wildly inconsistent?

Those are fair questions.

Because "give judges discretion" sounds straightforward until you have to design the boundaries of that discretion.

AND HERE IS MY CHALLENGE TO THE GOVERNMENT

The Government shouldn't hide behind slogans either.

If fifteen years is the correct mandatory floor, show Jamaica the evidence.

Demonstrate whether the legislation has materially contributed to reducing firearm crime.

Separate correlation from causation.

Show conviction rates.

Show plea rates.

Show Gun Court case times.

Show how many people received mandatory minimums.

Show how many cases involved real firearms versus imitation firearms.

Show whether plea bargaining has declined.

Show whether court congestion increased after implementation.

Data is King.

If the Government has the stronger evidence, publish it.

If the lawyers have the stronger evidence, publish theirs.

Let Jamaicans see both.

EDUCATION AND POWER

Now we return to the issue I raised at the beginning.

Jamaica has always had powerful professional classes.

Lawyers.

Doctors.

Businesspeople.

Politicians.

Academics.

Police commanders.

People with degrees.

And professional status comes with influence.

But influence must come with accountability.

That applies to lawyers just as much as it applies to politicians and police officers.

When educated professionals use their institutional power to influence public policy, ordinary Jamaicans are entitled to examine whose interests a proposed policy serves and what consequences it could produce.

That is not anti-lawyer.

That's democracy.

And the same scrutiny must be applied to Government.

If Parliament passes legislation that produces unjust outcomes, Parliament should fix it.

Nobody gets a free pass because of the letters behind their name.

THE QUESTION THAT JAMAICA MUST ANSWER

So now I return to that thumbnail.

WHO BENEFITS IF THE 15 YEARS ARE REDUCED?

Potentially, different groups in different circumstances.

An offender whose circumstances genuinely justify a lower sentence could benefit.

A defendant who pleads guilty early could benefit if Parliament restores meaningful plea discounts.

The court system might benefit if more defendants plead guilty and fewer matters go to trial.

But offenders who would otherwise receive the mandatory fifteen-year floor could also receive shorter sentences.

That is precisely why Jamaicans deserve specifics rather than slogans.

And there is another group that must never disappear from this discussion:

VICTIMS.

HOW MANY YEARS IS A JAMAICAN LIFE WORTH?

Now, understand the question properly.

Possessing an illegal firearm isn't identical to committing murder.

A fifteen-year firearm sentence isn't a mathematical valuation of somebody's life.

But behind Jamaica's firearms debate is something much larger.

The human cost of gun violence.

Every illegal firearm can potentially become the instrument of a robbery, shooting, or murder.

That is why Jamaicans take this issue so seriously.

So when professionals stand before the Supreme Court demanding changes to firearm sentencing, they should expect tough questions from the population.

And when the Government insists on harsh mandatory penalties, it should expect tough questions too.

Because justice isn't achieved merely by being harsh.

And justice isn't achieved merely by being lenient.

Justice requires laws that are effective, proportionate, predictable and fair.

MY MESSAGE TO JAMAICA

Don't allow anybody to reduce this debate to propaganda.

Don't accept:

"All these lawyers support gunmen."

The evidence doesn't establish that.

But don't accept:

"We're lawyers, therefore our position must be right."

That doesn't follow either.

Read what they're proposing.

Read the legislation.

Listen to the victims.

Listen to prosecutors.

Listen to defense attorneys.

Listen to judges.

Listen to police.

And then demand evidence.

Because Jamaica belongs to the Jamaican people.

Not the Government alone.

Not Parliament alone.

Not lawyers alone.

Not judges alone.

THE PEOPLE.

And when changes to criminal law affect whether someone spends fifteen years behind bars, the public deserves to understand exactly what is being changed and why.

CLOSING

So to Jamaica's legal fraternity, I say this:

You have made your protest.

Jamaica has heard you.

Now give the Country your precise proposed amendments.

Explain your safeguards.

Explain how your proposal protects victims.

Explain how it protects the innocent.

Explain how it treats the hardened illegal-gun offender.

Explain how it deals with imitation firearms used during violent crimes.

And explain why withdrawing services from Jamaica's criminal courts is necessary when those same courts already struggle with delays.

Then let the Government respond with its evidence.

And let the Jamaican people judge the arguments.

Because on Jamaican Young Police, we believe in something simple:

Substance Over Popularity.