Some sections of the Anti-Gang Bill “Doesn’t make any sense whatsoever,” Bowen says

Opposition MP Sherfield Bowen, an experienced attorney, presented a detailed critique of the proposed Anti-Gang Bill in Parliament today, emphasizing several concerns about the bill’s legal and social implications.

His argument focused on the bill’s inconsistencies, its potential infringement on rehabilitation efforts for young offenders, and issues with the mandatory sentencing provisions.

Critique of the Bill’s Structure and Focus

Bowen began by pointing out a fundamental inconsistency in the bill’s approach. He noted that the bill criminalizes association with gangs, creating new offenses such as joining a gang, being a gang member, or leading a gang, even when no specific criminal act is tied to this association.

He argued that existing laws already target criminal activities related to gangs, and the new bill essentially criminalizes affiliation without addressing the root causes of gang involvement. Bowen stated, “This bill is adding the fact that you’re a member of a gang to be another offense,” expressing concern that mere association, without proven criminal conduct, would be punishable under the bill.

Concerns for Minors and Rehabilitation

Bowen highlighted a particularly troubling aspect of the bill: its treatment of minors involved in gangs. Under section 17 of the bill, minors accused of being gang members or leaders would no longer be eligible for diversion under the Child Justice Act. This diversion process allows minors the opportunity for rehabilitation rather than punitive measures, which Bowen argued is crucial for youth involved in gang activity.

He remarked, “The person who gets themselves involved in a gang needs the benefit of the Child Justice Act for diversion and for rebuilding rehabilitation.” Bowen expressed deep concern that the bill would strip away this essential rehabilitative option, leaving vulnerable youths at risk of further criminalization instead of offering them a path to reform.

Sentencing Provisions and Judicial Discretion

Another key point raised by Bowen was the bill’s approach to sentencing, particularly the imposition of mandatory consecutive sentences for offenses under the act. He argued that this provision undermines judicial discretion by mandating harsh sentences without considering individual circumstances.

Bowen criticized this approach as “bad law,” stating that courts should be allowed to evaluate aggravating and mitigating factors in each case before determining an appropriate sentence. He added, “You cannot broad brush for a person who being alleged misguided as they may be to be a member of a gang; we should seek to rehabilitate these persons rather than condemning them to consecutive sentences for some long period of time.”

Inconsistencies in Bail Provisions

Bowen also identified discrepancies between the bill and existing laws related to bail. Under section 19, offenses under the Anti-Gang Bill would be added to the list of crimes for which bail is not available, further complicating the legal landscape.

Bowen pointed out that the provisions of the Bail Act and the Magistrate Court of Procedure Act are not harmonized, creating confusion over which offenses are eligible for bail. He urged Parliament to address these inconsistencies, noting that the bill as it stands would only add to the existing legal complexities.

Lack of Clarity in Certain Provisions

Throughout his presentation, Bowen also addressed specific sections of the bill that he believed were poorly drafted and difficult to interpret. For instance, he referenced section 15, which outlines restrictions on the publication of certain information but fails to provide clear guidelines or directions on what is prohibited.

Bowen remarked, “It makes no sense, and one cannot enforce this because it does not say anything; it’s a bunch of words that says nothing.” He further critiqued section 3, which similarly lacked clear definitions and failed to provide a positive direction for enforcement, stating that it “serves no purpose and cannot advance what is purported to be the objective of the act.”

Call for Preemptive Solutions

Bowen argued that while criminal activity, particularly among youth, is a serious issue, the bill focuses too heavily on punishment after the fact rather than addressing the root causes of gang involvement.

He urged the government to take a more evidence-based approach by engaging experts, gathering statistics, and studying the underlying factors driving criminal behavior among young people.

“What is really needed is engaging a bunch of experts, studying the problem, gathering the statistics, and letting the evidence dictate the government policy,” Bowen emphasized, calling for a more proactive and preventative approach to tackling gang-related crime.

Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]