cc

Caribbean Advanced Proficiency Examination

Law Unit 1

Topic: The Death Penalty in Guyana

Name of Center: Saint Stanislaus College

Center Code: 090047

Name of Candidate: Carlos John Gonsalves

Registration Number: 0900270267

Territory: Guyana

Year of exam: 2017

Teacher: Mr. Archibald

 TABLE OF CONTENT

Contents Pages

Acknowledgements 1

Introduction 2

Title 3

Description of Method employed 4

Presentation of Data (Findings) 5

Discussion of Findings 15

Recommendations 20

Bibliography 21

Appendices 22
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The researcher owes the successful completion of this assessment to various persons who have
offered invaluable aid to him. Gratitude must be given to his Law teacher, Mr. Archibald for his
guidance to the researcher.

1
 INTRODUCTION

A highly controversial topic that never seems to lose steam in Guyanese society is whether the
death penalty should be removed from the countrys laws. The country, despite having the capital
punishment listed in the law books for a magnitude of offenses, has not actually enforced it within
recent years (there has not been an execution since 1997)

In the past two decades, Guyana has been swept by a constant wave of crime which only appears
to be growing exponentially. Many citizens live in fear as reports swarm in of almost daily
robberies, batteries and murder. Current legislation appears to fail to act as any deterrent to
criminal elements, and many criminals are youths.

Hence this studys purpose is to determine if the reinstitution of the death penalty would be
beneficial in curbing the current crime wave plaguing the country.

2
 TITLE PAGE

Topic: The Death penalty in Guyana

Title: An investigation of the Death Penalty and Capital punishment in Guyana.

Aims and Objectives: This study also seeks to:

Analyze the publics opinion on the death penalty and its reinstitution.
To determine if Capital punishment in Guyana is cruel and inhumane punishment
Examine the various pros and cons of the of the death penalty
Determine if the reinstitution of the death penalty would potentially aid in curbing the
current plight of crime in Guyana

3
 DESCRIPTION OF METHOD EMPLOYED

The researcher employed both qualitative and quantitative data collection sources through both
primary and secondary data to compile this paper. Firstly, primary data was gathered through the
use of a survey (an investigation of a problem or a statistical study of a sample population) in the
form of a questionnaire which consisted of 12 questions that sought to encapsulate the knowledge
and opinions of the respondents as it relates to Capital Punishment. This survey was conducted
over both social media through the use of google docs and through the use of real life interviews.
The social media method sought to capture the opinions of the youth of the day, meanwhile the
face to face interviews were primarily targeted towards persons from the older class encountered
within Georgetown, this reduces the risk of the information being biased as it captures perspectives
from various ages and walks of life.

The second method of data collection employed was the use of qualitative data, namely; various
scholarly articles, extracts from journals, newspapers and e articles, extracts from the constitution
of Guyana (The Criminal Law Offenses act of Guyana, Defense Act of Guyana, and the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) act of Guyana) and various cases, both local and
foreign that deal with the inclusion of capital punishment such as Rileys case, Pratt and Morgan
and the Guyanese case of Abdool Yasseen. These materials are valid, reliable and true as they were
gathered from various sources that include the internet, the archives of the National library of
Guyana, the library of the High Court in addition to yielding similar results and coming from
positions of legal Authority in the Commonwealth Caribbean.

4
 PRESENTATION OF DATA (FINDINGS)
Human justice, irrespective of the form that it mutates, whether it be primitive tribal justice or
complex court processes and systems have possessed the concept of death as punishment for a
crime committed since time immemorial. Almost every culture, religion, and society across all
geographical boundaries have employed the death penalty throughout time with methods of
execution varying in methodology and brutality. As such Guyana is no exception as it was a colony
of Britain.

The death penalty or Capital punishment is defined as execution of an offender sentenced to death
after conviction by a court of law for a criminal offense. Capital punishment should be
distinguished from extrajudicial executions carried out without due process of law. The term death
penalty is sometimes used interchangeably with capital punishment, though imposition of the
penalty is not always followed by execution (even when it is upheld on appeal), because of the
possibility of commutation to life imprisonment.1 Strong historical evidence cements its place in
the development of mankind and law. Many ancient religions and civilizations codified the death
penalty into their laws, including the mosaic laws and the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi.2 The
imposition of a penalty of death is most often enshrined within a constitution, which is elegantly
defined by former Philippine Supreme Court Associate Justice George A. Malcolm as the written
instrument enacted by direct action of the people by which the fundamental powers of the
government are established, limited and defined, and by which those powers are distributed
among the several departments for their safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the body
politic. Similarly Former Philippine Supreme Court Associate Justice Isagani A. Cruz described
the constitutions supremacy as the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must

1
Encyclopedia Britannica, s.v. Capital Punishment accessed November 20th, 2016,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/capital-punishment
2
Encyclopedia Britannica, s.v. Retributive Justice accessed November 21th, 2016,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/retributive-justice
1
Encyclopedia Britannica, s.v. Capital Punishment accessed November 20th, 2016,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/capital-punishment

5
conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer all must
bow to the mandate of this law.3

Hence, the Constitution of Guyana prescribes the penalty of death for selected offenses. Persons
can be put to death if found guilty under the 4

Criminal Law (Offences) Act of Guyana, section 100, Laws of Guyana chapter 8:01,
Mar. 1998 that was amended in 2010:

For murdering:

A prison, Judicial, or legal officer acting in execution of his duties or any member of the
security forces or special constabulary or any member of society acting in execution of his
duties which is akin to aforementioned occupations with the same powers, privileged and
duties as aforementioned occupations or any person assisting in the duties of these persons.

Any party to a matter, witness or juror, past or present.

Any person during the commission of other crimes , namely: robbery, burglary, arson, any
sexual offense or for money or anything of value that was paid or is to be paid or is
promised to the person or a 3rd party to cause or assist in causing the death of another.

Any person in the furtherance of an act of violence that causes a public state of fear.

Criminal Law (Offences) Act of Guyana, section 309, Laws of Guyana chapter 8:01,
Mar. 1998 that was amended in 2010:

In relation to dealing with Acts of Terrorism

Persons found guilty of acts of terrorism which include but are not limited to the use of intent to
use various weapons that threaten the security or sovereignty of Guyana of to strike fear into
citizens.

3
http://www.academia.edu/5264745/The_Formation_of_Laws_a_power_point_presentation,
Accessed February 26th, 2017.
4
See Appendices for relevant quoted legislation that enshrines capital punishment.
6
 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act, Section 6, Laws of
Guyana, Chapter 10:10, September 2002

In dealing with illegal drugs and substances given to minors

Any person that gives or causes any narcotic to be given to any child or young person that
results in death of said minor, despite knowing or not that death was a likely outcome, shall
be liable to suffer death as a felon.

Hijacking and Piracy Act Section 7, Laws of Guyana, April 2008

In dealing with murder during the course of Hijacking or piracy

Any person who kills another of a vessel under attack while committing armed robbery is liable to
suffer death.

Criminal Law (Offences) Act of Guyana, section 317, Laws of Guyana chapter 8:01,
Mar. 1998 that was amended in 2010:

In dealing with Treason

Any person subject to military law who allies themselves with the enemy and aids them in any
way shall be put to death.

Defense Act of Guyana, Section 33, Laws of Guyana, Chapter 15:01, March 1998

In relating to punishment of military offenders

Any person subject to military law who abandons or causes another to abandon his post,
purposely impedes any operation, aid the enemy in any way when not a prisoner of war or
aids in specified ways when a prisoner of war may be put to death.

Clearly, the punishment of death is meted out for multiple offenses in accordance with the laws of
Guyana, but these sentences are rarely carried through, with multiple legal challenges restricting
the execution date. Various death row inmates have posited that the death sentence itself
constitutes to cruel and inhuman punishment or is unconstitutional which is seemingly a violation
of The Constitution of The Co-operative Republic of Guyana Act, Section 141, Chapter 12
Title 1, February 1980 which states that No person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman

7
or degrading punishment or other treatment. And The Constitution of The Co-operative
Republic of Guyana Act, Section 40, Chapter 3, February 1980

This was raised in the case of Abdool and Thomas vs. The Republic of Guyana where the
following claim was made: A Declaration that the death sentence prescribed by Section 100 of
the Criminal Law Offences Act, Chapter 8:01 and sections 163 and 190 of the Criminal Law
(Procedure) Act, Chapter 10:01 is unconstitutional and a violation of the Plaintiffs aforesaid
fundamental rights under article 40 of the Constitution of the Republic of Guyana

This challenge was noted by the learned Judge to be likely to fail, but following a ruling from by
Shetty, J. in the Indian case of Triveniban v. State of Gujarat, 1992 a stay of execution was
granted as the accused are entitled to pursue their claim till their last breath of life. However,
persuasive precedent exists in the case of Republic of Tanzania vs. Mbushu where the following
was held in the face of a challenge of the unconstitutionality of the death penalty. The death
penalty is inherently inhuman, cruel, and degrading punishment and its execution also offends
article 13(6) (d) and (e) of the Constitution.

Article 30(2) of the Constitution allows derogation from basic rights of the individual in
public interest. A law that allows derogation should be lawful in that it should not be
arbitrary, and it should be proportional in that the limitation should not be more than
reasonably necessary.

7The death penalty as provided for in s. 197 of the Penal Code was not arbitrary and was
a measure reasonably necessary to protect society, and is therefore saved by article 30(2)
of the Constitution. It was therefore not unconstitutional

In relation to assessing the publics views on the death penalty and its reintegration into Guyanese
society, several findings were obtained from the questions.

- In determining the publics awareness as it relates to capital punishment, 46.6 % of

respondents knew that Guyana has not formally abolished the death penalty, while 53.4
%respondents did not.
-
The following percentiles show what crimes respondents though were punishable by
death... 40% selected murder, 33% opined rape, 9.2% selected terrorism, 4.3% selected

8
 robbery while 3.6% chose assault, 3% for abuse, 1.7% for treason and 0.9% and 4.3% for
human or drug trafficking and no crime respectively.
- Half of the sample agreed that the death penalty should be meted out for especially serious
crimes while a combined total of 28 percent disagreed and 22 percent were undecided.
- The percentiles represent the publics opinion on the most occurring crimes in Guyana.,
the percentiles were : Murder- 17.9 % , Manslaughter- 5.2% , Dangerous/Drunk driving-
17.1% , Human Trafficking-2.8% , Drug trade- 9.5% , White collar crime-6% , Petty theft-
13.8% , Robbery- 17.4 %, Terrorism- 0%, Rape- 10.3% .
- 71.7% of respondents felt that a lack of severe measures to deter criminals facilitated
criminal activity, while 8.3% decided on the contrary and 20% were undecided on the
matter.
- 45% agreed while 25% disagreed 30% were unsure of where they stand in relation to the
death sentence being a better, more effective deterrent than life imprisonment in Guyana.
- Responses to benefits of the death penalty being reinstituted are as follows Deters
potential Offenders with 31%, eliminating the threat of re- offending and reduces cost
greatly with 22% and 20.4 % respectively. Preserves prison resources and Allows the
condemned and family certainty with16.2 % and 10% respectively.
- Responses to strong abolitionists arguments were, innocence with 36.4 %, 28% were
concerned with the circumstance of the killing where the accused may have been the victim
in some way, 21.2% for moral grounds and 14.4 % agreed that the convict could be
reintegrated into society.

As it regards to the death penalty, several aspects are commonly debated on, with arguments
being presented that both support abolitionist and retentionist movements. These generalized
arguments that both apply to specific jurisdictions as well as the whole issue of the death
penalty in general are as follows:

Deterrent effect

Capital Punishment is often cited as having a deterrent effect. However data and studies exist
that both deny and advance this claim, On the Abolitionists hand one U.S based study
says California averaged 6 executions a year from 1952 to 1967, and had twice the murder
rate than the period from 1968 until 1991 when there were no executions. In New York, from

9
 1907 to 1964, months immediately following an execution showed a net increase of two
murders - an average over a 57-year period.5

[L]ast year roughly 14,000 murders were committed but only 35 executions took place. Since
murderers typically expose themselves to far greater immediate risks, the likelihood is
incredibly remote that some small chance of execution many years after committing a crime
will influence the behavior of a sociopathic deviant who would otherwise be willing to kill if
his only penalty were life imprisonment. Any criminal who actually thought he would be
caught would find the prospect of life without parole to be a monumental penalty. Any criminal
who didnt think he would be caught would be untroubled by any sanction."6

However on the retentionist side of the coin:

During the temporary suspension on capital punishment from 1972-1976, researchers gathered
murder statistics across the country. In 1960, there were 56 executions in the USA and 9,140
murders. By 1964, when there were only 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to
9,250. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and 1975, after six more years
without executions, 20,510 murders occurred rising to 23,040 in 1980 after only two
executions since 1976. In summary, between 1965 and 1980, the number of annual murders in
the United States skyrocketed from 9,960 to 23,040, a 131 percent increase. The murder rate -
- homicides per 100,000 persons -- doubled from 5.1 to 10.2. So the number of murders grew
as the number of executions shrank. Researcher Karl Spence of Texas A&M University said:

"While some [death penalty] abolitionists try to face down the results of their disastrous
experiment and still argue to the contrary, the... [data] concludes that a substantial deterrent
effect has been observed...In six months, more Americans are murdered than have killed by
execution in this entire century...Until we begin to fight crime in earnest [by using the death
penalty], every person who dies at a criminal's hands is a victim of our inaction."

Notes Dudley Sharp of the criminal-justice reform group Justice for All:

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Death_penalty#Crime:_Does_capital_punis
hment_help_protect_the_public_and_deter_crime.3F, Accessed 1st March, 2017
6
"There's No Evidence That Death Penalty Is a Deterrent against Crime," August 8th, 2015,
theconversation.com, Accessed 1st March, 2017
10
 "From 1995 to 2000," "executions averaged 71 per year, a 21,000 percent increase over the
1966-1980 period. The murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2 (per 100,000) in 1980 to 5.7
in 1999 -- a 44 percent reduction. The murder rate is now at its lowest level since 1966. "

Religious/Moral grounds-

Pros

Various religious teachings and texts as well as moral foundations prescribe Capital
Punishment such as the Bible, as follows:

Numbers 35:30, 31, 33 - "If anyone kills another, the murderer shall be put to death on the
evidence of witnesses; but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of a single witness.
Moreover you shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer who is subject to the death
penalty; a murderer must be put to death...You shall not pollute the land in which you live;
for blood pollutes the land, and no expiation can be made for the land, for the blood that is
shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it."

A two and a half-year-old girl was kidnapped, raped, sodomized, tortured and mutilated with
vise grips over six hours. Then she was strangled to death. Her assailant, Theodore Frank,
according to court records and his own admissions, had already molested more than 100
children during a 20-year period. A sentence of death is the only appropriate punishment for
such a serial assailant committing such an extraordinarily heinous crime."7

Moral and religious evidence also exist to support the contrary:

Cons

Exodus (20:13): "You shall not kill."

Catholic teaching on the death penalty is clearly articulated in the encyclical The Gospel of
Life, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the

7
Michael D. Bradbury, Ventura County District Attorney. "The Death Penalty is an Affirmation
of the Sanctity of Life". LA Times. Accessed 1st March, 2017.

11
 Church. In Catholic teaching the state has the recourse to impose the death penalty upon
criminals convicted of heinous crimes if this ultimate sanction is the only available means to
protect society from a grave threat to human life. However, this right should not be exercised
when other ways are available to punish criminals and to protect society that are more
respectful of human life (i.e. life without parole).8

"Our justice system is not simply an instrument of vengeance, despite the connotation to that
effect contained in the extreme rhetoric that sometimes surrounds the constitutional debate
over continuing use of the electric chair."9

Cost

Pros

"Much of the cost, indeed, much of the criticism of the death penalty, is attributed to 'decades
of appeals.' It is unsurprising that the loudest complaints about death penalty delays come from
death penalty opponents who created them. Claimed 'cost studies,' often performed by or at the
behest of death penalty opponents, are frequently so incomplete as to be false and misleading.
For example, they don't take into account the increase in the cost of life without parole cases
if there were no death penalty. Criminal defendants who are facing the death penalty which
today must be pleaded by prosecutors up front often want to make a deal by pleading guilty
to first degree murder in exchange for a sentencing recommendation of life without parole. The
existence of the death penalty as a possible sentence leads to guilty pleas that save the money
spent on trials and limit the opportunity for appeals."10

Cons

"One of the most common misperceptions about the death penalty is the notion that the death
penalty saves money because executed defendants no longer have to be cared for at the state's
expense. If the costs of the death penalty were to be measured at the time of an execution that

8
"A Culture of Life and the Death Penalty, A Statement of the United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops Calling for an End to the Death Penalty". Accessed 1st March, 2017.
9
Harry Lee Anstead, Florida Supreme Court Justice, dissenting from a ruling that upheld the
constitutionality of the electric chair. St. Petersburg Times. 26 Sept. 1999
10
"Local View: Thoughts about the Death Penalty: Correcting the Record," journalstar.com, July
11, 2015, Robert B. Evnen, JD , Acessed 2nd March, 2017
12
 might indeed be true. But as every prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge knows, the costs of
a capital case begin long before the sentence is carried out. Experienced prosecutors and
defense attorneys must be assigned and begin a long period of investigation and pre-trial
hearings. Jury selection, the trial itself, and initial appeals will consume years of time and
enormous amounts of money before an execution is on the horizon

[A]ll of the studies conclude that the death penalty system is far more expensive than an
alternative system in which the maximum sentence is life in prison."11

International law

Brief Retentionist arguments

In 1948 the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which
member nations pledge to promote fundamental rights as the base for freedom, justice and
peace across the globe. In Article 3 of this, it states: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and
security of person. Strangely, from this, abolitionists interpret that the death penalty is a human
rights violation since it deprives a person's right to life. But if we were to follow that reasoning,
we would have to abolish prisons as a human rights violation as well since they deprive people
of liberty. We would also have to abolish charging taxes and fines since they violate one's
"security of person." Indeed, it is clear that the drafters of the Declaration of Human Rights
had the moral coherence to recognize the distinction between crime and punishment which
abolitionists try so desperately to erase. So the interpretation that abolitionists derive from
Article 3 of the Declaration is illogical and contradictory. And in Article 5, it states: No one
shall be subjected to cruel or degrading punishment. From this, abolitionists insist that capital
punishment is ruled out because it is "the ultimate cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment."
But that is their opinion, only! Indeed, what is stated in Article 5 is highly subjective and open
to interpretation and could just as easily be applied to prisons as well. And at the time it was
implemented, most nations who signed it had the death penalty and continued to use it long

11
Richard C. Dieter, MS, JD, former Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information
Center, stated the following in his Mar. 13, 2013 "Testimony Submitted to the Nebraska
Legislature,"

13
 after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was approved by them. So obviously, the
signers back then had the moral coherence to appreciate the distinction between murders and
executions.12

Brief Abolitionist arguments

The UN Committee against Torture has referred to the uncertainty of many people under
sentence of death in a country where the death penalty is in the process of being abolished as
"amounting to cruel and inhuman treatment in breach of article 16 of the [UN] Convention
[against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment]13

The European Court of Human Rights has held that "the manner in which [a death sentence] is
imposed or executed, the personal circumstances of the condemned person and a
disproportionality to the gravity of the crime committed, as well as the conditions of detention
awaiting execution, are examples of factors capable of bringing the treatment or punishment
received by the condemned person within the proscription under Article 3 [of the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European
Convention on Human Rights')]."14

12
http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html#world, Accessed 3rd March, 2017
13
Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture: Armenia, UN document A/56/44,
17 November 2000, para. 39(g). Article 16 of the Convention requires states parties to undertake
to prevent cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in their territories. Accessed
March 2nd 2017
14
European Court of Human Rights, Soering case (1/1989/161/217), judgment, Strasbourg, 7
July 1989, para. 104. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits torture
and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Accessed March 2nd 2017

14
 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

Based on the aforementioned information on capital punishment and its relation and role in
Guyana, The researcher has, by way of analysis decided to stand adamant in the position that the
death penalty should be in practice for the following reasons.

The interpretation of the quantitative data collected from the sample, was the first basis for the
conclusion that the death penalty should be reinstituted, as the general consensus amongst civilians
is that persons should pay in equal proportion for the crime theyve committed, However, due to
Guyana being abolitionist in practice , with the last execution being carried out 2 decades ago,
public perception of the sentence is limited, which would in turn severely injure any subsequent
deterrent effect. Majority of respondents opined particularly violent crimes such as murder and
rape to be capital ones in addition to these being the most occurring ones in Guyana, possibly
because the nature of these crimes implicates that death would be a befitting punishment. As such
the philosophy of an eye for an eye can be inferred or Lex Talen. Majority of respondents also
cited that the lack of such a severe penalty actually encouraged crime and that the death penaltys
reinstitution would have several beneficial effects. Hence, The Guyanese public opinion is
generally retentionist.

Secondly, as it relates to the legality (in both domestic and international law) and constitutionality
of the Death penalty the researcher asserts, with great certainty, that the Death penalty in Guyana
is completely legal and does not constitute cruel and inhuman punishment. The basis for this is
rooted in Guyanas retention of the death penalty and the existence of various laws relating to the
death penalty in Guyana which serves to solidify the Governmental stance of apparent but hesitant
retention. In corroboration with this is the parliament of Guyanas approval of the Hijacking and
Piracy Act in 2008. Parliament also amended the Criminal Law (Offences) Act of Guyana to
reduce the mandatory death sentence to discretionary except for specific circumstances.15 However
it also enforced a mandatory death penalty upon introduction of its anti- terrorism legislation in
2015.

15
http://www.handsoffcain.info/bancadati/schedastato.php?idstato=20000057&idcontinente=24
Accessed November 27th, 2016
15
This appears a small step for the abolitionist movement, but in fact remains that the death penalty
is still prescribed within the law, the amendment is merely a liberation of the judges to consider
the circumstances of each case in contrast to the restriction imposed on them before once a guilty
of murder verdict was reached. This is reinforced upon the decision of the court in The State vs
Dwane Johnson.2012 where the high court of Guyana interpreted the statute to say that death was
the maximum penalty enforceable. The concise deliberation on death penalty laws and the total
disregard for abolition calls clearly demonstrate Guyanas standing on the issue. This is further
elaborated by Guyanas decision to ignore a call from the international community to formally
abolish its death penalty laws. Also in the case of Abdool and Thomas vs. The Republic of Guyana
the defendants, on death row for more than 10 years, appealed to the UN Human Rights
Committee, which recommended their immediate release from prison; Guyana subsequently
withdrew from the UN Optional Protocol on Civil and Political Rights, then re-subscribed with a
reservation preventing convicted murderers from appealing to the body in the future. 16 As a
precedent initiated by the Privy Council in Pratt vs. A.G of Jamaica.1993 which dictated that undue
delay of a sentence of death for a period exceeding 5 years from its imposition would be
tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment contrary to the Jamaican Constitution.17 The
relevance of this ruling on the Guyanese jurisdiction is magnified as the highest appellate court for
Guyana, the Caribbean Court of Justice considered this judgement in a ruling on a Barbadian case,
effectively rendering the rulings as binding on Guyana. When one considers that Guyana followed
suit with Privy Council rulings that made death sentences discretionary in R v Reyes.2002, R vs
Bowe.2006, R v Fox.2002 and R vs Hughes.2002 in Belize, Bahamas, Saint Kitts and Nevis and
Saint Lucia respectively, the dismissal of this precedent clearly speaks to the countrys retentionist
intention. Persons also argue that extended time on death row may constitute cruel and inhumane
punishment which was upheld by the privy council, enforcing the five year rule, however in a
jurisdiction like Guyana, the full appeal process can take well over five years, this rule is often
exploited by death row inmates to indefinitely stop proceedings as they are well aware of the
glacial speed of legal processes within the country, however Former Attorney General of Guyana
Anil Nandlall notes that the courts have found that the death penalty is constitutional( Precedent

16
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/session62/view676.htm Accessed November 28th, 2016
17
Privy council Database of cases, http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1993/1993_37.html,
Accessed November 28th, 2016
16
of Republic vs. Mbushu) and that the delays resulting from the litigation initiated by the death row
appellants do not amount to cruel and inhumane treatment. As a result, he believes that the law
should be applied where legal processes have been exhausted. 18

The question of the efficiency of the death penalty should it be reinstituted speaks to the weighing
of its pros and its cons and their varying effects and applicability to Guyanese society.

On the issue of Deterrence, a third of the sample believe it to be a valid ground for the reinstitution
of the death penalty, a common support it that it eliminates the threat of recidivism (as numerous
documented cases exist with convicts killing fellow inmates, guards or escaping and killing
civilian) and potential offenders, but innocents being convicted and miscarriages of justice are
often used to counter this. Abolitionists commonly cite studies that generally shows a higher crime
rate in retentionist countries than in abolitionist countries, they fail to consider the factors
responsible. In these countries, of those given the death sentence, very few are executed, which
promotes disregard of the deterrent effect as there is no certainty of the punishment. In addition,
crimes of passion also contribute to the statistics, indicating that if done in the heat of the moment,
the likelihood of any punishment providing a deterrent effect is immensely low. In countries where
execution is a virtual certainty once given the death penalty, statistics record a correlated decrease
in serious crimes, such as Singapore while The rates for unlawful killings in Britain have more
than doubled since abolition of capital punishment in 1964 from 0.68 per 100,000 of the population
to 1 .42 per 100,000. Home Office figures show around unlawful killings 300 in 1964, which rose
to 565 in 1994 and 833 in 2004. The number of killings recorded by police rose to 636 in the 12
months to March 2011, up from 608 the previous year. Convictions for the actual crime of murder
(as against manslaughter and other unlawful killings) have also been rising inexorably. Between
1900 and 1965 they ran at an average of 29 per year. There were 57 in 1965 the first year of
abolition. Ten years later the total for the year was 107 which rose to 173 by 1985 and 214 in
1995. Evidence also points to the death penalty, during its years of reinforcement in Britain from
1900, provided a strong deterrence to truly criminal activities and killings but not to domestic or
passion crimes. In Guyana, when Desmond Hoyte, responded to a spree of breaking and entering

18
http://www.landofsixpeoples.com/news702/ns0705083.html, Accessed November 28th, 2016

17
and murder by hanging the criminals, the country saw a vast decrease in such crimes for the
following period19 consequently, the potential deterrent effect of the death penalty to the common
criminal mind in Guyana should not be underestimated.

Moral and religious justification is used for both sides, however, this better supports the
retentionist stance as despite many modern day religions seem to campaign against it, the religious
texts and writings of many religions endorse capital punishment, in addition, The city state of Israel
still retains the death penalty for the most horrendous crimes, which in in co- ordinance with
Guyanas stance. In Guyana, the Major religions of Christianity, Hinduism and Islam all prescribe
the Death penalty in their prescribed teachings which vary depending on the religious institutions
and categories in each religion. From a moral basis, most Guyanese would applaud a sentence of
death to the most heinous criminals as the concept of an eye for an eye is prevalent

The matter of saving cost is also of great import. Abolitionists argue that the cost of a death penalty
outweighs the cost of a life sentence, often citing studies conducted in the USA which implicate
numerous appeals and habeas corpus proceedings. They show that death penalty trials are longer
and more attention is paid to various elements of the case such as jury selection etc. which incur a
great cost over many years. In a Jurisdiction like Guyana, the number of appeals are limited and
the criminal justice system is much more simplified that in the United States. In addition, given
that the method of execution in Guyana is hanging, the cost for purchasing mechanisms and
chemicals is greatly reduced. Hence, a jurisdiction like Guyanas would see a great cost reduction
of executions were carried out.

In conclusion, Statistics appear to support both arguments, but the sources used for abolition
appear to be biased and limited in scope, in addition, Guyana has clearly demonstrated intent to
retain the death penalty and as such utilize it as a final step for the punishment of severe crimes.
The research concludes that the death penalty, once enforced under current provisions, but
supplemented with various reforms and conducted with efficiency and certainty, would certain aid
in the retardation of the crime spree currently plaguing Guyana. The primary data infers that the

19
http://guyanatimesgy.com/are-we-returning-to-kick-down-door-banditry/, Accessed November
28th, 2016
18
public opinion generally still favors the death penalty, but certain concerns need to be addressed
to minimize the risk of a miscarriage of justice, an abuse pf power or unfair trial.

19
 Recommendations

Upon conducting extensive research relating to the capital punishment in Guyana and its place in
a modern jurisdiction, its assessment in the publics eyes and its various arguments to support or
abolish the death penalty. The researcher has made the following recommendation.

The death penalty should me maintain under the current provisions as amended in 2010, as it has
been established that the punishment is not unconstitutional and that the government of Guyana
has clearly shown intent to keep and potentially employ the death penalty in its disregard of
precedents and international pressure.

The constitution should be amended to specify that certain precedents should be applied only when
extended delay is instituted by the state. It should also be amended to provide inadmissibility to
evidence used in convictions achieved through the use of an abuse of power by authority.

The Police forces and relevant authorities should be reformed to minimize corruption and
miscarriages of justice, as well as the country should invest in advancement in medical and
criminal investigation technology such as advanced ballistics and DNA testing to ensure certainty
in convictions and a speedy and effective process that will not violate the ruling in Pratt and
Morgan.

Lastly, more human methods of execution should be employed such as lethal injection, in addition
to an investment in criminal detention facilities for death row inmates.

20
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following sources were utilized.

Thornes, Nelson CAPE Law Unit 1 Study Guide Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Nelson
Thornes Ltd, 2010.

Antoine, Rose-Marie Belle Commonwealth Caribbean Law and Legal Systems Oxon,
United Kingdom: Routledge-Cavendish Publishing Ltd, 1998.

Demerieux, Margaret Fundamental Rights in the Commonwealth Caribbean Constitutions

Faculty of Law, University of the West Indies (Cave Hill), 1992.

Criminal Law (Offences) Act of Guyana, Laws of Guyana chapter 8:01, Mar. 1998

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act, Laws of Guyana, September
2002

21
 APPENDICIES

Criminal Law (Offences) Act of Guyana, section 100, Laws of Guyana chapter 8:01,
Mar. 1998 that was amended in 2010:
Subject to subsection (3), every person who is convicted of murder committed in any of the
following circumstances shall be sentenced in accordance with section 100A (1) (a) that is to say
(i) a member of the security forces acting in the execution of his duties or of a person assisting
a member so acting;

(ii) A prison officer acting in the execution of his duties or of a person assisting a prison officer
so acting;

(iii) a judicial or legal officer acting in the execution of his duties; or any person acting in the
execution of his duties, being a person who, for the purpose of carrying out those duties, is vested
under the provisions of any law in force for the time being with the same powers, authorities
and privileges as are given by law to members of the Special Constabulary, or any such member
of the security forces, prison officer, judicial or legal officer or person for any reason directly
attributable to the nature of this occupation;

The murder of any person for any reason directly attributable to

The status of that person as a witness or party in a pending or concluded civil cause or matter or
in any criminal proceedings; or the service or past service of that person as a juror in any criminal
trial;

Any murder committed by a person in the course or furtherance of

(i) robbery;
(ii) Burglary or housebreaking;

(iii) Arson in relation to a dwelling house; or

(iv) Any sexual offence;

(d) Any murder committed pursuant to an arrangement whereby money or anything of value

22
(i) Passes or is intended to pass from one person to another or to a third party at the request or
direction of that other person; or

(ii) is promised by one person to another or to a third person at the request or direction of that
other person, as consideration for that other person causing or assisting in causing the death or any
act causing or assisting in causing that death;

(e) any murder committed by a person in the course or furtherance of any act involving the use
of violence by that person which, by reason of its nature and extent, is calculated to create a state
of fear in the public or any section of the public.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), every person convicted of murder other than a person convicted
of murder in the circumstances specified in subsection (1) (a) to (e), shall be sentenced in
accordance with section 100A (1) (b).

(3) If in the case of any murder referred to in subsection (1) (not being a murder referred to in
paragraph

(d) Of that subsection), two or more persons are convicted of that murder

(a) The provisions of section 100A (1) (a) shall apply to any of those persons who

(i) By his own act caused the death of, or inflicted or attempted to inflict grievous bodily harm
on, the person murdered; or

(ii) Himself used violence on that person in the course or furtherance of an attack on that
person; and

(b) Any other person convicted of that murder shall be sentenced in accordance with section
100A (1) (b).

(4) In this section

Prison officer has the same meaning as in the Prisons Act;

Judicial or legal officer applies to the categories of persons referred to in Article 199 (3) of the
Constitution;

23
Member of the security forces means a member of

(a) The Guyana Police Force;

(b) The Guyana Defense Force to the extent that such member has been assigned to act in aid
of the Police;

(c) The Special Constabulary.

Every person who is convicted of murder falling within

(a) section 100 (1)(a) to (e) shall be sentenced to death or to imprisonment for life;
(b) section 100 (2), shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life or such other term as the
Court considers appropriate, not being less than fifteen years.
(2) Where a Court pronounces a sentence of death pursuant to subsection (1) (a)

(a) The form of the sentence shall be to the effect only that the person is to suffer death in the
manner authorized by law;

(b) Every person so sentenced shall, after sentence, be confined to some safe place within the
correctional institution, apart from all other inmates; and

(c) The sentence may be carried into execution as heretofore has been the practice.

Criminal Law (Offences) Act of Guyana, section 309, Laws of Guyana chapter 8:01,
Mar. 1998 that was amended in 2010:
. (1) Whoever

(a) With intent to threaten the security or sovereignty of Guyana or to strike terror in the people
or any section of the people, does any act or thing by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive
substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons or poisons or noxious
gases or other chemicals or by any other substances (whether biological or otherwise) of a
hazardous nature or by any other means whatsoever, in such a manner as to cause, or likely to
cause, death of, or injuries to any person or persons or loss of, or damage to, or destruction of,
property or disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community or causes

24
damage or destruction of any property or equipment used or intended to be used for the Defense
of Guyana or in connection with any other purposes of the Government of Guyana or any of its
agencies, or detains any person and threatens to kill or injure such person in order to compel the
Government or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act commits a terrorist act;

(b) Whoever commits a terrorist act commits an offence and shall

(i) If such act has resulted in the death of any person, be punishable with a fine or not less than
one million five hundred thousand dollars together with death;

In dealing with illegal drugs and substances given to minors under the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act, Section 6, Laws of

Guyana, Chapter 10:10, September 2002
6. (1) Where any person unlawfully

(a) Supplies or causes to be supplied to;

(b) Administers, whether orally or otherwise, or causes to be administered to; or

(C) causes to be taken by,

any child or young person any narcotic and that child or young person dies as a result of the
consumption, or introduction otherwise into his body, of the narcotic or part of the narcotic so
supplied, or the administration of the narcotic, then, the person, who supplied or administered the
narcotic or caused the narcotic to be supplied, administered or taken, even though he did not intend
that death should, or knew that death was likely to result from the consumption, or introduction
otherwise into the body, or administration of the narcotic, shall be liable on conviction on
indictment to suffer death as a felon.

Hijacking and Piracy Act Section 7, Laws of Guyana, April 2008

7. A person who causes the death of any person on board a vessel that is under attack while
committing an offense of armed robbery, piracy or hijacking is liable on conviction on
indictment to suffer death.

Criminal Law (Offences) Act of Guyana, section 317, Laws of Guyana chapter 8:01,
Mar. 1998 that was amended in 2010:

25
 Any person owing allegiance to the State who, whether in Guyana or elsewhere

(A) Forms an intention to levy war against the State or to overthrow the Government or the
Constitution of Guyana by force and manifests such intention by any overt act;

Adheres to the enemies of the State by giving them aid or comfort, shall be guilty of treason and
liable to suffer death by hanging.

Defense Act of Guyana, Section 33, Laws of Guyana, Chapter 15:01, March 1998
1. (l) Every person subject to military law under this Act who with intent to assist the enemy

(a) abandons or delivers up any place or post which it is his duty to defend, or induces any
person to abandon or deliver up any place or post which it is that persons duty to defend; or

(b) does any act calculated to imperil the success of operations of the Force, of any forces co-
operating there with or of any part of any of those forces; or

(c) having been made a prisoner of war, serves with or aids the enemy in the prosecution of
hostilities or of measures calculated to influence morale, or in any other manner whatsoever not
authorized by international usage; or

(d) Furnishes the enemy with arms or ammunition or with supplies of any description or with
any other thing likely to assist him (whether similar to any of the things aforesaid or not); or

(e) Harbors or protects an enemy not being a prisoner of war,

26
The Constitution of The Co-operative Republic of Guyana Act, Section 40, Chapter 3,
February 1980

(1) Every person in Guyana is entitled to the basic right to a happy, creative and productive life,
free from hunger, disease, ignorance and want. That right includes the fundamental rights and
freedoms of the individual, that is to say, the right, whatever his race, place of origin,

1. political opinions, color, creed or sex, but subject to respect for the rights and freedoms
of others and for the public interest, to each and all of the following, namely

2. Life, liberty, security of the person and the protection of the law.

3. freedom of conscience, of expression and of assembly and association; and

4. Protection for the privacy of his home and other property and from deprivation of
property without compensation.

(2) The provisions of Title 1 of Part 2 shall have effect for the purpose of affording
protection to the aforesaid fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual subject to
such limitations of that protection as are contained in those provisions, being limitations
designed to ensure that the enjoyment of the said rights and freedoms by any individual
does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others in the public interest..

27