On Wednesday, December 8, the House of Representatives passed a bill by a vote of 216-198. The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (the DREAM Act) was first proposed in the United States Senate in 2001 and was re-introduced there and the House of Representatives in 2009.
This decade-old measure contains provisions for undocumented students who graduate from high school to gain temporary legal residency, and later permanent legal residency. However, a student must have lived in the U.S. for five years, must have been brought here before age 16 and must be of good moral character. Within six years, the student could be considered for permanent legal residency if he or she graduates from a two-year college or completes two years toward a four-year degree or serves two years in the U.S. military.
The Bill is likely to go before the US Senate as early as this coming week, and requires a minimum of 60 votes before it can be sent to the President for his signature. While this may not appear to be a proper solution to the immigration problem, it will certainly lessen the cries of the innocent, and open new doors for their overall growth in this land of opportunities.
According to information posted by the American Immigration Council on their website, approximately 65,000 undocumented students graduate from high school, each year, but cannot go to college, join the military, work, or otherwise pursue their dreams. This 1.5 generation—any immigrant brought to the United States at a young age - are raised in this country and therefore share much in common with second generation Americans. These students are culturally American, growing up here and often having little attachment to their country of birth. They tend to be bicultural and fluent in English. Many don’t even know that they are undocumented immigrants until they apply for a driver’s license or college, and then learn they lack Social Security numbers and other necessary legal documents.
Here are some of the benefits/reasons given for supporting/advocating for the DREAM ACT:
The DREAM Act would be a boon to the economy and the U.S. workforce. Moreover, as the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) has pointed out, “The DREAM Act would create an unprecedented opportunity for many young people to step onto a path to permanent legal status, a path that would require them to demonstrate either a significant investment in their human capital or service to the United States through membership in the armed forces.” The DREAM Act presents an opportunity that should not be wasted.
What Would the DREAM Act Do? ▲
The DREAM Act addresses the plight of young undocumented immigrants growing up in the United States who wish to go to college and obtain lawful employment. The bill allows current, former, and future undocumented high-school graduates and GED recipients a pathway to U.S. citizenship through college or the armed services.
• An undocumented high-school graduate or GED recipient would be eligible to adjust to conditional lawful permanent resident (LPR) status if they have been physically present in the United States for at least five years and were younger than 16 when they first entered the country.
• This LPR status would be granted on a conditional basis and valid for six years, during which time the student would be allowed to work, go to school, or join the military.
• The “conditional” status would be removed and the person granted LPR status after six years once the student has either completed two years in a program for a bachelor’s degree or higher degree or has served in the armed services for at least two years and, if discharged, has received an honorable discharge.
• DREAM Act students would not be eligible for federal education grants. Students would, however, be eligible for federal work study and student loans, and individual states would not be restricted from providing financial aid to the students.
Who Would Benefit from the DREAM Act? ▲
There are an estimated 2.1 million undocumented children and young adults in the United States who might be eligible for legal status under the DREAM Act. For many of these young people, the United States is the only home they know and English is their first language. Each year, tens of thousands of them graduate from primary or secondary school, often at the top of their classes. They have the potential to be future doctors, nurses, teachers, and entrepreneurs, but they experience unique hurdles to achieving success in this country. Through no fault of their own, their lack of status may prevent them from attending college or working legally. The DREAM Act would provide an opportunity for them to live up to their full potential and make greater contributions to the U.S. economy and society.
• 114,000 potential beneficiaries with at least an associate’s degree would be immediately eligible for conditional LPR status.
• 612,000 potential beneficiaries would be immediately eligible for conditional LPR status because they already have a high-school diploma or GED (and would have the incentive to complete two years of college or two years of military service to be eligible for permanent status).
• 934,000 children under 18 could be eligible for conditional LPR status in the future, which would provide them with incentives to finish high school and pursue a post-secondary education or join the military.
• 489,000 potential beneficiaries could be eligible for conditional LPR status in the future if they obtain a GED.
DREAM Act-eligible immigrants live in all 50 states, but some states have far more potential beneficiaries than others. The top ten states with the largest number of potential DREAM Act beneficiaries are California (26% of the national total), Texas (12%), Florida (9%), New York (7%), Arizona (5%), Illinois (4%), New Jersey (4%), Georgia (3%), North Carolina (2%), and Colorado (2%). All other states combined are home to one-quarter of potential DREAM Act beneficiaries.
What are the Economic Benefits of the DREAM Act? ▲
• The DREAM Act would give beneficiaries access to greater educational opportunities and better jobs, which in turn means more taxable income: A 2010 study by the UCLA North American Integration and Development Center estimates that the total earnings of DREAM Act beneficiaries over the course of their working lives would be between $1.4 trillion and $3.6 trillion. A 2008 study from Arizona State University found that an individual with a bachelor’s degree earns approximately $750,000 more over the course of his or her lifetime than an individual with only a high-school diploma. As of 2006, workers without a high-school diploma earned $419 per week and had an unemployment rate of 6.8 percent. Workers with a bachelor’s degree earned $962 per week and had an unemployment rate of 2.3 percent, while workers with a doctoral degree earned $1,441 per week and had an unemployment rate of 1.4 percent. A study by the College Board found that over the course of their working lives, the average college graduate earns in excess of 60 percent more than a high-school graduate, and workers with advanced degrees earn two to three times as much as high-school graduates. The U.S. Department of Labor found that the wages of immigrants in the 1986 legalization increased 15 percent over five years, and that the immigrants move on to “significantly better jobs.”
• The DREAM Act would allow legalized immigrants to invest in the U.S. economy: Dr. Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda of the University of California, Los Angeles, and others have studied the impact of legalization and found important long-term improvements among previously undocumented immigrants. Specifically, removing the uncertainty of undocumented status allows legalized immigrants to earn higher wages and move into higher-paying occupations, and also encourages them to invest more in their own education, open bank accounts, buy homes, and start businesses.
• The DREAM Act would save taxpayers money: According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the House version of the DREAM Act (H.R. 6497), as introduced on December 7, 2010, "would reduce deficits by about $2.2 billion over the 2011-2020 period." The CBO estimated that the Senate version of the DREAM Act (S. 3992), as introduced on November 30, 2010, "would reduce deficits by about $1.4 billion over the 2011-2020 period." A RAND study from 1999 shows that raising the college graduation rate of Hispanics to that of non-Hispanic whites would increase spending on public education by 10 percent nationwide, but the costs would be more than offset by savings in public health and benefits, as well as increased tax revenues resulting from higher incomes. For example, a 30-year-old Mexican immigrant woman with a college degree will pay $5,300 more in taxes and use $3,900 less in government expenses each year compared to a high-school dropout with similar characteristics.
• The DREAM Act would likely reduce the drop-out rate for immigrant students by creating a strong incentive for undocumented students to remain in school until graduation. Currently, most undocumented children are forced to work illegally in the cash economy as domestic servants, day laborers, and sweatshop factory workers. The DREAM Act would make these children lawfully eligible to work, and help fill positions like teachers, nurses, and service employees—positions that have long been in demand in the United States.
The DREAM Act keeps talented students in the United States: Letting the talent of DREAM Act students go to waste “imposes economic and emotional costs on undocumented students and on U.S. society as a whole.” The DREAM Act would also stop brain drain by allowing our most talented students to remain in the country. Currently, only 5-10 percent of undocumented high-school graduates go to college.
What are the Additional Benefits of the DREAM Act? ▲
• The DREAM Act would help universities. The 10 states which, since 2001, have passed laws allowing undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition have not experienced a large influx of new immigrant students that displaces native-born students. These states (Texas, California, Utah, Washington, New York, Wisconsin, Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, and Nebraska) are home to about half of the nation’s undocumented immigrants. The measures actually tend to increase school revenues as students who would not normally attend college start to pay tuition.
• The DREAM Act would aid military recruiting. The DREAM Act would help the military find new recruits—almost 8 percent of the current armed forces are foreign-born, and the military relies heavily on the translation and cultural expertise of immigrants. According to West Point Professor Lt. Col. Margaret Stock, the DREAM Act “would be tremendously beneficial to the military. It gives the opportunity to enlist hundreds of thousands of high-quality people.” DREAM Act students are so desirable that the Department of Defense has supported the bill to help enlist new recruits and maintain the strength of the military. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy, Bill Carr, supports the DREAM Act and stated that the law would be “good for readiness” and would help to recruit “cream of the crop” students.
For more info visit the AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL website at http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/dream-act#do
Aiming to Forge a New & Dynamic Caribbean, this blog provides a forum for discussions on: 1) Transnationalism and law - implications for people moving frequently between host and donor countries. 2) The environment & development -nexus between people, the environment and law. 3) Sustainable environmental initiatives: carbon reduction, alternative sources of energy - wind power, solar energy and hydro-power.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
PLEA BARGAINING: ESCAPE OF THE GUILTY, OR TYRANNY OF GOOD INTENTIONS?
By D. Ron Singh
INTRODUCTION
I note with great interest, the introduction of the plea bargaining into the Guyana judicial system through the landmark criminal case involving Dayan Kawal. It is indeed a historic moment not only for the judicial system, but also for murder accused Daywan Kawal, the first defendant to sign a plea bargaining agreement which would give him a lighter sentence in return for testifying against a co-accused. It also entered defense attorney, Peter Hugh and Director of Public Prosecutions, Shalimar Ali-Hack into the history books. The Criminal Procedure (Plea Bargaining and Plea Agreement) Act 2008 was passed in the National Assembly on October 16, 2008. But while we applaud the initiative let us not rush to hasty conclusions on its potential effectiveness. While plea bargaining has merits in certain situations, it also has a downside. In fact, many legal analysts and commentators in the United States opined that it is a strong influence on the miscarriage of justice. I trust, that by the time you finished reading the rest of this article, you would be in a better position to evaluate the viability and potency of this transplanted initiative which we are so eager to implement in the Caribbean.
THE PROMISE OF PLEA BARGAINING
In the United States, the majority of criminal cases, in both, state and federal courts are resolved through plea bargains (also referred to as plea agreements). Plea bargains can be an effective means to dispose of cases and make efficient use of judicial resources, and are an integral part of the criminal justice system. In fulfillment of that goal, plea bargain is a means to an end. However, plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that the government would not retaliate against individuals who choose to exercise their right to trial by jury. It should be noted though, that the issue of non-retaliation was sidestepped in the landmark 1978 precedent for plea bargaining, where the U.S. Supreme Court 5–4 ruling in Bordenkircher v. Hayes upheld the sentence of life imprisonment. The Court declined to overturn Hayes’s sentence because he had turned down a plea bargain, i.e., he had refused to admit his guilt and accept a prison term of five years, which would have avoided the risk of life imprisonment at trial.
In a plea bargain, a defendant agrees to enter a guilty plea to one or more charges rather than go to trial. In exchange for the guilty plea, the prosecutor agrees to dismiss one or more charges against the defendant, reduce the charge(s) to a lesser offense, and/or make recommendations to the judge regarding sentencing. It should be noted however, that the particular structure of a plea agreement will vary from case to case. Furthermore, while plea agreements are similar to civil contracts, they are not as binding on the parties. A defendant can withdraw a plea agreement any time before he has actually entered a guilty plea, and even after entering a plea there are circumstances in which a defendant can request that the plea be set aside. Prosecutors too, can withdraw plea agreements under certain circumstances. The prosecutor can revoke a plea offer before the defendant enters a plea, unless the defendant has detrimentally relied on the plea offer prior to its withdrawal or unless the trial court orders enforcement of the plea agreement under principles of contract law. However, although the prosecutor and the defendant may have reached a plea agreement to resolve the case, they still must obtain the approval of the trial court before the agreement becomes the actual disposition of the case. Further, a trial court is not bound by the terms of the agreement made between the prosecutor and the defendant. Notwithstanding, the enforcement of plea bargains must be consistent with the constitutional principles of due process, and any ambiguities in a plea agreement must be construed in favor of the defendant.
PROS AND CONS OF PLEA BARGAINING
There is hardly any system that is error free. However, one would expect the benefits of a system/initiative to greatly out-weigh the disadvantages. Let us now examine plea bargaining. A major downside to many criminal cases being settled by plea bargain is that justice, the hallmark responsibility of the judicial system, through the courts, may be sidestepped in favor of expediency. Since the defendant willingly pleads guilty to a crime lesser than the one for which he has been accused, no trial would occur and the defendant would be convicted of a crime after entering a plea of no contest or guilty. When there is strong evidence that a crime was committed, the defendant may be happy and willing to admit to a less serious crime. On the other hand, the innocent defendant would accept guilt for a crime he did not commit, and thus, would be harnessed with a criminal record, probably pay fines or put on probation regardless of innocence.
The defense attorney benefits by reducing the charges against his client, and avoiding the expense of a trial. On the negative side, he doesn’t get to prove the innocence of his client, and may even try to convince his innocent client to plead guilty.
The Prosecutors aim to convict people charged with crimes, and in many instances, for personal triumph rather than justice, but huge caseloads make it difficult to fully prosecute every accused in trials. Plea bargain delivers a conviction, even though it may not be the strongest conviction possible. The general consensus is that prosecutors prioritize cases, trying the exceptionally horrific ones, but are willing to negotiate the less serious crimes. However, many critics and comentators believe that this may no longer be true in the U.S.
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES & PLEA BARGAINING
I believe it would not be far fetched to successfully argue that while plea agreements may speed up caseload of judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers, they may do so in an unconstitutional way. This begs the question therefore, as to whether it is proper for a government that is constitutionally required to respect the right to trial by jury to use its powers to pressure an individual to waive that right? As Timothy Lynch, director of the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice, puts it, “The prosecutor typically agrees to a reduced prison sentence in return for the defendant’s waiver of his constitutional right against self-incrimination and his right to trial.”
Lynch further argues that “a close inspection will show that the constitutional rationale underlying plea bargaining cannot withstand scrutiny. … the existence of some element of choice has never been thought to justify otherwise wrongful conduct.”
Supporting his claim, Lynch cited the opinion of Chief Judge William G. Young of the Federal District Court in Massachusetts on the modern criminal justice system:
Evidence of sentencing disparity visited on those who exercise their Sixth Amendment right to trial by
jury is today stark, brutal, and incontrovertible.… Today, under the Sentencing Guidelines regime
with its vast shift of power to the Executive, that disparity has widened to an incredible 500 percent.
As a practical matter this means, as between two similarly situated defendants, that if the one who
pleads and cooperates gets a four-year sentence, then the guideline sentence for the one who exercises
his right to trial by jury and is convicted will be 20 years. Not surprisingly, such a disparity imposes an
extraordinary burden on the free exercise of the right to an adjudication of guilt by one’s peers.
Furthermore, the victims also have rights. To that end, they are entitled to justice/fair trial, or put differently, their day in court. From the victim’s perspective, being heard throughout the criminal justice process is very important, not only for the healing, but also for justice. It should be noted that prosecutors represent the state, and they're charged with seeking justice, not convictions. Plea agreements thus, erode justice. While I have not seen the much hyped "Rape in a Small Town," a film which apparently throws light on plea bargaining, many viewers believe it represents an excellent example of the damage that can be done when victims are denied the opportunity to tell their stories.
ISSUES OF ETHICS AND JUSTICE
Plea bargaining also raises ethical and justice issues. In a column in The Gleaner of April 21, 2009, Dr Canute Thompson, assistant vice-president at the International University of the Caribbean, highlighted several issues of ethics and justice pertaining to the practice of plea-bargaining. He questions the process, arguing that charges against an accused are a matter of public information, while the bargaining is essentially a private process. He further contends that, the more fundamental question is whether there should be any bargain at all, especially when a person accused of a heinous crime is given the opportunity to manipulate the process by opting to offer up information on others in exchange for leniency. He further posits that an accused who has layers of information needed by the State may offer the first layer and get a considerable reduction in the sentence, and thereafter, use the additional layers for an even better deal which may let him out of prison sooner to enjoy the ill-gotten wealth.
Dr. Thompson further points out that plea bargains are perceived as offering the accused a freedom of choice between a lesser and greater punishment in return for information or cooperation in further investigations against others. He questions whether such offering won’t send the signal that the crime committed is not as crucial as the capture or imprisonment of the other(s).
Dr. Thompson posed three other pertinent questions: How does a prosecutor decide with whom to bargain? What are the criteria and who sets those criteria? Should there be a role for the public's input? He concludes by saying that while there is a role for leniency and mercy, the process must be transparent, and plea-bargaining is not a transparent process.
CONCLUDING NOTE
With the fore going discussion in mind, it seems clear that the major purpose of plea bargaining in the U.S. today, is reducing caseloads at the expense of the accused waiving his constitutional right. The practice also raises serious questions on ethics and justice. In light of reality, what does plea bargaining hold for Guyana and other smaller economies of the Caribbean? I believe only time will determine whether plea bargaining serves a truly useful purpose that mitigates the trampling of the constitutional rights of the accused. In essence, we must now wait to see whether it would foster Escape of the Guilty, to use Ralph A. Fine’s 1987 title or whether it would turn out to be The Tyranny of Good Intentions, the title of Paul C. Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton’s 2000 book.
By D. Ron Singh
INTRODUCTION
I note with great interest, the introduction of the plea bargaining into the Guyana judicial system through the landmark criminal case involving Dayan Kawal. It is indeed a historic moment not only for the judicial system, but also for murder accused Daywan Kawal, the first defendant to sign a plea bargaining agreement which would give him a lighter sentence in return for testifying against a co-accused. It also entered defense attorney, Peter Hugh and Director of Public Prosecutions, Shalimar Ali-Hack into the history books. The Criminal Procedure (Plea Bargaining and Plea Agreement) Act 2008 was passed in the National Assembly on October 16, 2008. But while we applaud the initiative let us not rush to hasty conclusions on its potential effectiveness. While plea bargaining has merits in certain situations, it also has a downside. In fact, many legal analysts and commentators in the United States opined that it is a strong influence on the miscarriage of justice. I trust, that by the time you finished reading the rest of this article, you would be in a better position to evaluate the viability and potency of this transplanted initiative which we are so eager to implement in the Caribbean.
THE PROMISE OF PLEA BARGAINING
In the United States, the majority of criminal cases, in both, state and federal courts are resolved through plea bargains (also referred to as plea agreements). Plea bargains can be an effective means to dispose of cases and make efficient use of judicial resources, and are an integral part of the criminal justice system. In fulfillment of that goal, plea bargain is a means to an end. However, plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that the government would not retaliate against individuals who choose to exercise their right to trial by jury. It should be noted though, that the issue of non-retaliation was sidestepped in the landmark 1978 precedent for plea bargaining, where the U.S. Supreme Court 5–4 ruling in Bordenkircher v. Hayes upheld the sentence of life imprisonment. The Court declined to overturn Hayes’s sentence because he had turned down a plea bargain, i.e., he had refused to admit his guilt and accept a prison term of five years, which would have avoided the risk of life imprisonment at trial.
In a plea bargain, a defendant agrees to enter a guilty plea to one or more charges rather than go to trial. In exchange for the guilty plea, the prosecutor agrees to dismiss one or more charges against the defendant, reduce the charge(s) to a lesser offense, and/or make recommendations to the judge regarding sentencing. It should be noted however, that the particular structure of a plea agreement will vary from case to case. Furthermore, while plea agreements are similar to civil contracts, they are not as binding on the parties. A defendant can withdraw a plea agreement any time before he has actually entered a guilty plea, and even after entering a plea there are circumstances in which a defendant can request that the plea be set aside. Prosecutors too, can withdraw plea agreements under certain circumstances. The prosecutor can revoke a plea offer before the defendant enters a plea, unless the defendant has detrimentally relied on the plea offer prior to its withdrawal or unless the trial court orders enforcement of the plea agreement under principles of contract law. However, although the prosecutor and the defendant may have reached a plea agreement to resolve the case, they still must obtain the approval of the trial court before the agreement becomes the actual disposition of the case. Further, a trial court is not bound by the terms of the agreement made between the prosecutor and the defendant. Notwithstanding, the enforcement of plea bargains must be consistent with the constitutional principles of due process, and any ambiguities in a plea agreement must be construed in favor of the defendant.
PROS AND CONS OF PLEA BARGAINING
There is hardly any system that is error free. However, one would expect the benefits of a system/initiative to greatly out-weigh the disadvantages. Let us now examine plea bargaining. A major downside to many criminal cases being settled by plea bargain is that justice, the hallmark responsibility of the judicial system, through the courts, may be sidestepped in favor of expediency. Since the defendant willingly pleads guilty to a crime lesser than the one for which he has been accused, no trial would occur and the defendant would be convicted of a crime after entering a plea of no contest or guilty. When there is strong evidence that a crime was committed, the defendant may be happy and willing to admit to a less serious crime. On the other hand, the innocent defendant would accept guilt for a crime he did not commit, and thus, would be harnessed with a criminal record, probably pay fines or put on probation regardless of innocence.
The defense attorney benefits by reducing the charges against his client, and avoiding the expense of a trial. On the negative side, he doesn’t get to prove the innocence of his client, and may even try to convince his innocent client to plead guilty.
The Prosecutors aim to convict people charged with crimes, and in many instances, for personal triumph rather than justice, but huge caseloads make it difficult to fully prosecute every accused in trials. Plea bargain delivers a conviction, even though it may not be the strongest conviction possible. The general consensus is that prosecutors prioritize cases, trying the exceptionally horrific ones, but are willing to negotiate the less serious crimes. However, many critics and comentators believe that this may no longer be true in the U.S.
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES & PLEA BARGAINING
I believe it would not be far fetched to successfully argue that while plea agreements may speed up caseload of judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers, they may do so in an unconstitutional way. This begs the question therefore, as to whether it is proper for a government that is constitutionally required to respect the right to trial by jury to use its powers to pressure an individual to waive that right? As Timothy Lynch, director of the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice, puts it, “The prosecutor typically agrees to a reduced prison sentence in return for the defendant’s waiver of his constitutional right against self-incrimination and his right to trial.”
Lynch further argues that “a close inspection will show that the constitutional rationale underlying plea bargaining cannot withstand scrutiny. … the existence of some element of choice has never been thought to justify otherwise wrongful conduct.”
Supporting his claim, Lynch cited the opinion of Chief Judge William G. Young of the Federal District Court in Massachusetts on the modern criminal justice system:
Evidence of sentencing disparity visited on those who exercise their Sixth Amendment right to trial by
jury is today stark, brutal, and incontrovertible.… Today, under the Sentencing Guidelines regime
with its vast shift of power to the Executive, that disparity has widened to an incredible 500 percent.
As a practical matter this means, as between two similarly situated defendants, that if the one who
pleads and cooperates gets a four-year sentence, then the guideline sentence for the one who exercises
his right to trial by jury and is convicted will be 20 years. Not surprisingly, such a disparity imposes an
extraordinary burden on the free exercise of the right to an adjudication of guilt by one’s peers.
Furthermore, the victims also have rights. To that end, they are entitled to justice/fair trial, or put differently, their day in court. From the victim’s perspective, being heard throughout the criminal justice process is very important, not only for the healing, but also for justice. It should be noted that prosecutors represent the state, and they're charged with seeking justice, not convictions. Plea agreements thus, erode justice. While I have not seen the much hyped "Rape in a Small Town," a film which apparently throws light on plea bargaining, many viewers believe it represents an excellent example of the damage that can be done when victims are denied the opportunity to tell their stories.
ISSUES OF ETHICS AND JUSTICE
Plea bargaining also raises ethical and justice issues. In a column in The Gleaner of April 21, 2009, Dr Canute Thompson, assistant vice-president at the International University of the Caribbean, highlighted several issues of ethics and justice pertaining to the practice of plea-bargaining. He questions the process, arguing that charges against an accused are a matter of public information, while the bargaining is essentially a private process. He further contends that, the more fundamental question is whether there should be any bargain at all, especially when a person accused of a heinous crime is given the opportunity to manipulate the process by opting to offer up information on others in exchange for leniency. He further posits that an accused who has layers of information needed by the State may offer the first layer and get a considerable reduction in the sentence, and thereafter, use the additional layers for an even better deal which may let him out of prison sooner to enjoy the ill-gotten wealth.
Dr. Thompson further points out that plea bargains are perceived as offering the accused a freedom of choice between a lesser and greater punishment in return for information or cooperation in further investigations against others. He questions whether such offering won’t send the signal that the crime committed is not as crucial as the capture or imprisonment of the other(s).
Dr. Thompson posed three other pertinent questions: How does a prosecutor decide with whom to bargain? What are the criteria and who sets those criteria? Should there be a role for the public's input? He concludes by saying that while there is a role for leniency and mercy, the process must be transparent, and plea-bargaining is not a transparent process.
CONCLUDING NOTE
With the fore going discussion in mind, it seems clear that the major purpose of plea bargaining in the U.S. today, is reducing caseloads at the expense of the accused waiving his constitutional right. The practice also raises serious questions on ethics and justice. In light of reality, what does plea bargaining hold for Guyana and other smaller economies of the Caribbean? I believe only time will determine whether plea bargaining serves a truly useful purpose that mitigates the trampling of the constitutional rights of the accused. In essence, we must now wait to see whether it would foster Escape of the Guilty, to use Ralph A. Fine’s 1987 title or whether it would turn out to be The Tyranny of Good Intentions, the title of Paul C. Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton’s 2000 book.
Monday, September 13, 2010
INDEPENDENT COUNTRIES HAVE A SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO PROTECT THEIR CITIZENS
By D.Ron Singh
Over the last few years, we have seen an increasing number of extradition requests by the United States for criminals from around the Caribbean. Two recent requests for Dataram from Guyana, and Christopher Coke from Jamaica, have generated ongoing debates and discussions in various sociopolitical circles, not only in the Caribbean, but in the United States as well. At the same time, the Caribbean governments concerned have become integrally involved. The Jamaican officials were reviewing the terms of their legislation, the Jamaica-U.S. Extradition Treaty, 1991, and circumstances surrounding Coke’s extradition request. Meanwhile Prime Minister Bruce Golding argued that that there is an insufficiency of credible evidence to substantiate a criminal charge against Coke, and that the other available evidence was obtained in breach of the Interception of Communications Act, 2002.
In the wake of repeated requests for Dataram, the Guyanese officials amended the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1988 to address the conflicts that arose regarding the laws on one hand, and individual’s human right issues and his country’s protection on the other. Some commentators have posited that the amendment is controversial because it included a provision which empowers the Home Affairs Minister to decide whether to extradite or not.
Rather than commenting on the potential amendment controversy or the Golding position, I believe it would be more pertinent to demonstrate the potency of those positions by examining what other countries have done in similar situations.
A review of the cases and extradition requests over several decades would most likely reveal that the process is one way. It is always the powerful country seeking someone or a criminal from a poor country to stand trial for some wrong he committed in the powerful country, or against someone from that country.
Whether from a rights perspective, or other humanitarian grounds, many commentators would agree that every country has a right to protect its citizens. To that end, many countries may deny extradition requests if, in the government's opinion, the suspect is sought for a political crime. Countries, such as Mexico, Canada and several European nations, for example, will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that it will not be imposed. A case on point is Soering v. United Kingdom, where the European Court of Human Rights held that it would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights to extradite a person to the United States from the United Kingdom on a capital charge. This reasoning was based on the harsh conditions on death row and the uncertain timescale within which the sentence would be executed. In addition, the Court ruled that the United States federal government was constitutionally unable to offer binding assurances that the death penalty would not be sought in Virginia courts. Ultimately, the Commonwealth of Virginia itself offered assurances to the federal government, which passed those assurances on to the United Kingdom, after which the individual was extradited to the United States. Furthermore, the European Convention prohibits signatories from extraditing people to countries where there is a significant risk of torture or inhumane treatment or punishment.
Other countries, such as France, Russian Federation, Germany, Austria, China and Japan, forbid extradition of their citizens either by law or by treaty. Such restrictions are occasionally controversial in other countries when, for example, a French or German citizen commits a crime abroad and then returns to his home country, perceiveable to avoid prosecution. These countries have laws in place that give them jurisdiction over crimes committed abroad by or against citizens. By virtue of such jurisdiction, they prosecute citizens accused of crimes committed abroad as if the crime had occurred within the country's borders.
In a case currently before the Guatemalan court, former President Alfonso Portill is facing extradition to the United States. He was arrested Jan. 26 on the U.S. extradition request. The Court has approved Portillo's extradition to the U.S. to face money laundering charges in New York. However, under Guatemalan law, the accused must first be tried at home in a separate case before facing charges abroad.
CONCLUDING NOTE
In light of extradition scenarios around the world, both Jamaica and Guyana were within their rights as they sought to protect their citizens. Jamaica’s stalling position was within permittable rights because the authorities sought to clarify issues relevant to the extradition of Christopher Coke. In like fashion, Guyana’s amended Fugitive Act represents a positive move if its principal purpose is to protect Guyanese from the kinds of punishment prohibited by the European Convention on Human Rights. A major concern, however, is that many third world leaders may, for sinister purposes, not release their citizens. Furthermore, the Officials may over use the power vested in them to thwart extradition based on cronyism. Perhaps these were the thoughts that have informed and invigorated the critics of the recent positions taken by Jamaica and Guyana. For these very reasons, critics of the Jagdeo Government have voiced their concerns on the power now vested in the Minister of Home Affairs with regards to extradition of Guyanese nationals. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it would be prudent for us to observe and examine the functioning of the newly vested power before we jump to premature conclusions.
(This article was written before Coke surrendered to authorities. He is currently in US custody.)
By D.Ron Singh
Over the last few years, we have seen an increasing number of extradition requests by the United States for criminals from around the Caribbean. Two recent requests for Dataram from Guyana, and Christopher Coke from Jamaica, have generated ongoing debates and discussions in various sociopolitical circles, not only in the Caribbean, but in the United States as well. At the same time, the Caribbean governments concerned have become integrally involved. The Jamaican officials were reviewing the terms of their legislation, the Jamaica-U.S. Extradition Treaty, 1991, and circumstances surrounding Coke’s extradition request. Meanwhile Prime Minister Bruce Golding argued that that there is an insufficiency of credible evidence to substantiate a criminal charge against Coke, and that the other available evidence was obtained in breach of the Interception of Communications Act, 2002.
In the wake of repeated requests for Dataram, the Guyanese officials amended the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1988 to address the conflicts that arose regarding the laws on one hand, and individual’s human right issues and his country’s protection on the other. Some commentators have posited that the amendment is controversial because it included a provision which empowers the Home Affairs Minister to decide whether to extradite or not.
Rather than commenting on the potential amendment controversy or the Golding position, I believe it would be more pertinent to demonstrate the potency of those positions by examining what other countries have done in similar situations.
A review of the cases and extradition requests over several decades would most likely reveal that the process is one way. It is always the powerful country seeking someone or a criminal from a poor country to stand trial for some wrong he committed in the powerful country, or against someone from that country.
Whether from a rights perspective, or other humanitarian grounds, many commentators would agree that every country has a right to protect its citizens. To that end, many countries may deny extradition requests if, in the government's opinion, the suspect is sought for a political crime. Countries, such as Mexico, Canada and several European nations, for example, will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that it will not be imposed. A case on point is Soering v. United Kingdom, where the European Court of Human Rights held that it would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights to extradite a person to the United States from the United Kingdom on a capital charge. This reasoning was based on the harsh conditions on death row and the uncertain timescale within which the sentence would be executed. In addition, the Court ruled that the United States federal government was constitutionally unable to offer binding assurances that the death penalty would not be sought in Virginia courts. Ultimately, the Commonwealth of Virginia itself offered assurances to the federal government, which passed those assurances on to the United Kingdom, after which the individual was extradited to the United States. Furthermore, the European Convention prohibits signatories from extraditing people to countries where there is a significant risk of torture or inhumane treatment or punishment.
Other countries, such as France, Russian Federation, Germany, Austria, China and Japan, forbid extradition of their citizens either by law or by treaty. Such restrictions are occasionally controversial in other countries when, for example, a French or German citizen commits a crime abroad and then returns to his home country, perceiveable to avoid prosecution. These countries have laws in place that give them jurisdiction over crimes committed abroad by or against citizens. By virtue of such jurisdiction, they prosecute citizens accused of crimes committed abroad as if the crime had occurred within the country's borders.
In a case currently before the Guatemalan court, former President Alfonso Portill is facing extradition to the United States. He was arrested Jan. 26 on the U.S. extradition request. The Court has approved Portillo's extradition to the U.S. to face money laundering charges in New York. However, under Guatemalan law, the accused must first be tried at home in a separate case before facing charges abroad.
CONCLUDING NOTE
In light of extradition scenarios around the world, both Jamaica and Guyana were within their rights as they sought to protect their citizens. Jamaica’s stalling position was within permittable rights because the authorities sought to clarify issues relevant to the extradition of Christopher Coke. In like fashion, Guyana’s amended Fugitive Act represents a positive move if its principal purpose is to protect Guyanese from the kinds of punishment prohibited by the European Convention on Human Rights. A major concern, however, is that many third world leaders may, for sinister purposes, not release their citizens. Furthermore, the Officials may over use the power vested in them to thwart extradition based on cronyism. Perhaps these were the thoughts that have informed and invigorated the critics of the recent positions taken by Jamaica and Guyana. For these very reasons, critics of the Jagdeo Government have voiced their concerns on the power now vested in the Minister of Home Affairs with regards to extradition of Guyanese nationals. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it would be prudent for us to observe and examine the functioning of the newly vested power before we jump to premature conclusions.
(This article was written before Coke surrendered to authorities. He is currently in US custody.)
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Conflicts and Cleavage in Venezuela
By D. Ron Singh
‘There are two related crises in today’s world. The first and most visible is the population-environment crises. The second, more subtle but equally lethal, is humankind’s relationship to its extensions, institutions, ideas, as well as the relationships among the many individuals and groups that inhabit the globe…’
Edward T. Hall (1976)
INTRODUCTION
The unprecedented movement of peoples within their own borders (e.g., rural-urban migration) and across frontiers (e.g., moving from one country to another) is perhaps one of the greatest transformations of humankind in the 20th century. But population movement is not a new phenomenon; it was born out of human history, and has grown by leaps and bounds in the last century. In the Caribbean economies (including continental Guyana), a huge number of the present generation comprise offspring of people who were transplanted from different racial and cultural environments, i.e., from many parts of Asia (mainly India and China), and Africa. Until emancipation (in the1830s), population movements were mainly inward, as they formed the labor force of these Caribbean economies. Since emancipation, there have been active population movements within countries, between countries, and to North America and Europe (Foner 2001, Roopnarine, et al 2005). In recent decades, the United States, Canada, Australia, Germany, and other European countries have had huge increases in their immigrant families (UN Commission on Population Development 1997). But while there is a multitude of studies done on immigrant families in the industrialized world, there is a paucity of data on immigrant families in the developing economies. Venezuela, for example, has experienced demographic changes, due in part to an influx of immigrants, the majority of whom were from neighboring Latin American countries (e.g., Colombia, Peru, Uruguay, etc.). With such population movements, an increasing number of people are surrounded by immigrants whose cultures and lifestyles contrast sharply with their own. Thus, we live in a world of sudden changes, massive cultural collisions, profound multi-ethnicity, and plethora of possible group identities (Shah 1994). Such diversity, which may be politically, economically or humanely desirable or even necessary, is not without its challenges for individuals and groups from both, the donor and the host societies.
Much of human history has witnessed struggles and conflicts, conquest and oppression, and even genocide. Despite the interconnectedness of people and the worldwide sharing of knowledge in today’s world, through the huge advances in various facets of human life, through technology and modern ways of communicating and interacting, many people continue to follow a biologically driven tendency to be suspicious of those who are not part of their group. In postmodern information societies, it would seem that people have chosen to focus on their differences rather than their similarities. Recognizing people according to predetermined variables is a universal cultural trait (Perry & Perry 2006). In societies characterized by people of diverse ethnic origins, there is a display of racial and ethnic behaviors, stemming from biological factors or physical appearances, and cultural characteristics. The media-world seems replete with evidence that many societies were founded, and are to this day polarized, on the basis of race and ethnicity. Additionally, the history of colonization provides overwhelming evidence of how manipulation of people, punitive expeditions or denial of basic social services and human rights, laid firm foundations for conflicts-in-waiting when colonial administration gave way to independent governments (Oucho 1996). In essence, the psychology of domination and denial of basic human rights have impacted the lives of millions of people in human communities across the globe.
Clearly, the dynamics of racial and ethnic differences have played their part in creating and sustaining conflicts in numerous societies, and such conflicts have had devastating psycho-social and economic impacts to varying degrees on families and children who lived through those experiences. But despite the disintegration and/or displacement of families and groups, many have been able to solidify their ethnic or group cohesion, holding steadfastly to their cultural-ethnic similarities to mobilize ethnic cleavage and solidarity.
(For complete discussion on the topic, see Ronald Singh, Conflicts and Cleavage in Venezuela. In Prem Misir (Ed.), Ethnic Cleavage & Closure in the Caribbean Diaspora: Essays on Race, Ethnicity & Class. New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 2007.)
‘There are two related crises in today’s world. The first and most visible is the population-environment crises. The second, more subtle but equally lethal, is humankind’s relationship to its extensions, institutions, ideas, as well as the relationships among the many individuals and groups that inhabit the globe…’
Edward T. Hall (1976)
INTRODUCTION
The unprecedented movement of peoples within their own borders (e.g., rural-urban migration) and across frontiers (e.g., moving from one country to another) is perhaps one of the greatest transformations of humankind in the 20th century. But population movement is not a new phenomenon; it was born out of human history, and has grown by leaps and bounds in the last century. In the Caribbean economies (including continental Guyana), a huge number of the present generation comprise offspring of people who were transplanted from different racial and cultural environments, i.e., from many parts of Asia (mainly India and China), and Africa. Until emancipation (in the1830s), population movements were mainly inward, as they formed the labor force of these Caribbean economies. Since emancipation, there have been active population movements within countries, between countries, and to North America and Europe (Foner 2001, Roopnarine, et al 2005). In recent decades, the United States, Canada, Australia, Germany, and other European countries have had huge increases in their immigrant families (UN Commission on Population Development 1997). But while there is a multitude of studies done on immigrant families in the industrialized world, there is a paucity of data on immigrant families in the developing economies. Venezuela, for example, has experienced demographic changes, due in part to an influx of immigrants, the majority of whom were from neighboring Latin American countries (e.g., Colombia, Peru, Uruguay, etc.). With such population movements, an increasing number of people are surrounded by immigrants whose cultures and lifestyles contrast sharply with their own. Thus, we live in a world of sudden changes, massive cultural collisions, profound multi-ethnicity, and plethora of possible group identities (Shah 1994). Such diversity, which may be politically, economically or humanely desirable or even necessary, is not without its challenges for individuals and groups from both, the donor and the host societies.
Much of human history has witnessed struggles and conflicts, conquest and oppression, and even genocide. Despite the interconnectedness of people and the worldwide sharing of knowledge in today’s world, through the huge advances in various facets of human life, through technology and modern ways of communicating and interacting, many people continue to follow a biologically driven tendency to be suspicious of those who are not part of their group. In postmodern information societies, it would seem that people have chosen to focus on their differences rather than their similarities. Recognizing people according to predetermined variables is a universal cultural trait (Perry & Perry 2006). In societies characterized by people of diverse ethnic origins, there is a display of racial and ethnic behaviors, stemming from biological factors or physical appearances, and cultural characteristics. The media-world seems replete with evidence that many societies were founded, and are to this day polarized, on the basis of race and ethnicity. Additionally, the history of colonization provides overwhelming evidence of how manipulation of people, punitive expeditions or denial of basic social services and human rights, laid firm foundations for conflicts-in-waiting when colonial administration gave way to independent governments (Oucho 1996). In essence, the psychology of domination and denial of basic human rights have impacted the lives of millions of people in human communities across the globe.
Clearly, the dynamics of racial and ethnic differences have played their part in creating and sustaining conflicts in numerous societies, and such conflicts have had devastating psycho-social and economic impacts to varying degrees on families and children who lived through those experiences. But despite the disintegration and/or displacement of families and groups, many have been able to solidify their ethnic or group cohesion, holding steadfastly to their cultural-ethnic similarities to mobilize ethnic cleavage and solidarity.
(For complete discussion on the topic, see Ronald Singh, Conflicts and Cleavage in Venezuela. In Prem Misir (Ed.), Ethnic Cleavage & Closure in the Caribbean Diaspora: Essays on Race, Ethnicity & Class. New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 2007.)
Thursday, June 3, 2010
CARICOM: IN SEARCH OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
By D. Ron Singh
The Caribbean region faces growing demands for energy at a time of rising energy prices and tensions over reliability of supply. The major source of energy for CARICOM States is fossil fuel, with Barbados and Trinidad & Tobago producing oil and gas, and a handful of others generating significant amounts of power from geothermal, solar, wind, wood and waste products. The dependence on fossil fuels has not only deepened the vulnerability of the region to global fuel price increases, but has also plagued its foreign exchange reserves. This is further complicated with the likelihood of consumption increases due to growth in urbanization, industry and hospitality services. The Region must search for alternative viable sources of energy that reduce dependence on fossil fuel. One major challenge is how to meet the energy needs and development aspirations while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Clearly, the alternative should be more environment friendly through the reduction of air pollution and the wise use of environmental resources.
CARICOM need to adopt integrated energy systems that derive power from solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, ocean energy technology and bio-fuels. Integrating these renewable energy inputs into a workable economy requires considerable revision of the energy infrastructure, a shift towards more distributed energy systems, and the introduction of specialized components like fuel cells and flow-cell batteries. A shift to such systems won't happen overnight nor will it occur everywhere at the same pace. It calls for a regional effort to implement mechanisms to facilitate its introduction, as well as open access to information - a fundamental part of good environmental governance, and a necessary prerequisite to public involvement in decision-making processes that affect the environment. In this context, where externalities are all but inevitable, public access to environmental information may be one useful mechanism to force States to take into account the views of all those who are impacted by actions taken within their borders.
The best hopes to provide energy, particularly in rural areas, lie in cheap adaptable renewable energy resources. Not only do they provide the best choice and the diversity, but the energy extracted is returned to the environment with normally no net pollution effect. The following are among the viable alternatives which CARICOM should emphasize in its current and future development strategies.
Solar energy, one the most potent sources of energy for the future, is presently being used on a smaller scale in furnaces for homes and to heat up swimming pools. The solar panel is very environment friendly, but requires adequate legal and infrastructural arrangements for its wide-use in the region. Coupled with solar panels, architectural designs of buildings can be an extremely resourceful energy saving mechanisms in the region. Changing building designs to make them climate sensitive, i.e., to reflect and capitalize on tropical conditions – abundance of sunlight and wind – can reduce dramatically the use of and dependence on electricity.
Wind power does not produce by-products that are harmful to nature. Like solar power, harnessing the wind is highly dependent upon weather and location. It is simple and cost-effective, and with the Caribbean’s good wind conditions, onshore wind power can even cost less than conventional power. More importantly, the environmental benefits are huge. For example, two wind farms in the Netherlands will cut 5,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year from the atmosphere. Denmark is leading the world with 20% of its power coming from wind power. In some rural areas of Guyana, small wind turbines have been reintroduced in recent years. However, the infrastructural requirements and high costs limit them to a few light bulbs, a refrigerator and recharging batteries.
Geothermal energy, although not enough to replace more than a minor amount of the future's energy needs, should be considered. Obtained from the internal heat of the planet, it can be used to generate steam to run turbines, which in turn generate electricity. This power can be accessed from geothermal hotspots, i.e., volcano countries such as Montserrat and St. Vincent, where there is no need to drill deep into the earth.
In the continental states, i.e., Guyana, Belize and Surinam, as well as the larger islands, i.e., Jamaica, Barbados, bio-fuels (bio-diesel, bio-gas and bio-mass) have great promise. They have huge areas of arable lands for those crops which are used for generating environmentally friendly bio-fuels. The energy plants can be run by solar and/or bio-fuel energy.
Further, adopting carrot-measures to encourage newer models of automobiles and implementing transportation stick-taxing systems can be extremely useful, cost efficient and economically feasible ways of conserving energy and coping with energy crisis. Like the renewable energy sources, it would reduce costs through less use of gas, and ultimately reduce pollution and dependence on fossil fuel.
Adopting solar derived renewable technologies will only be effective through cumulative efforts of whole communities, at the national as well as the regional level. Government’s action is needed to redirect funding towards these ends and to remove institutional obstacles. Noting CARICOM’s growing demands for energy, the Inter American Development Bank (IDB) Sustainable Energy and Climate Change Initiative (SECCI) has pledged to finance selected programs and projects aimed at finding economically and environmentally sound energy options. But sustainability of the region requires more than financing selected projects; it requires huge investment inflows with long-term plans and initiatives. The implementation of such measures within CARICOM can only be achieved through facilitative legal frameworks and sustainable financing mechanisms. The carrot approach can be extremely useful in encouraging inter-States’ cooperation, and can be a valuable tool within individual economies to forge compliance among the various stakeholders.
CARICOM States must create regulatory framework that reward investment in energy efficiency, as few utilities have meaningful incentives to promote a product which may reduce their profit margins. This would foster long-term investment in least cost, sustainable energy resources, promote technological innovations and avoid polluting industries.
(For the complete article, see Ronald Singh, Advancing a "Carrot & Stick" Framework for CARICOM Environmental Cooperation and Governance, 16(1) PENN ST. ENVTL. L. REV. 244-49 (2007) and 37 ENVTL POLICY & LAW (Nos. 5 & 6) 483-85 (2007).
The Caribbean region faces growing demands for energy at a time of rising energy prices and tensions over reliability of supply. The major source of energy for CARICOM States is fossil fuel, with Barbados and Trinidad & Tobago producing oil and gas, and a handful of others generating significant amounts of power from geothermal, solar, wind, wood and waste products. The dependence on fossil fuels has not only deepened the vulnerability of the region to global fuel price increases, but has also plagued its foreign exchange reserves. This is further complicated with the likelihood of consumption increases due to growth in urbanization, industry and hospitality services. The Region must search for alternative viable sources of energy that reduce dependence on fossil fuel. One major challenge is how to meet the energy needs and development aspirations while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Clearly, the alternative should be more environment friendly through the reduction of air pollution and the wise use of environmental resources.
CARICOM need to adopt integrated energy systems that derive power from solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, ocean energy technology and bio-fuels. Integrating these renewable energy inputs into a workable economy requires considerable revision of the energy infrastructure, a shift towards more distributed energy systems, and the introduction of specialized components like fuel cells and flow-cell batteries. A shift to such systems won't happen overnight nor will it occur everywhere at the same pace. It calls for a regional effort to implement mechanisms to facilitate its introduction, as well as open access to information - a fundamental part of good environmental governance, and a necessary prerequisite to public involvement in decision-making processes that affect the environment. In this context, where externalities are all but inevitable, public access to environmental information may be one useful mechanism to force States to take into account the views of all those who are impacted by actions taken within their borders.
The best hopes to provide energy, particularly in rural areas, lie in cheap adaptable renewable energy resources. Not only do they provide the best choice and the diversity, but the energy extracted is returned to the environment with normally no net pollution effect. The following are among the viable alternatives which CARICOM should emphasize in its current and future development strategies.
Solar energy, one the most potent sources of energy for the future, is presently being used on a smaller scale in furnaces for homes and to heat up swimming pools. The solar panel is very environment friendly, but requires adequate legal and infrastructural arrangements for its wide-use in the region. Coupled with solar panels, architectural designs of buildings can be an extremely resourceful energy saving mechanisms in the region. Changing building designs to make them climate sensitive, i.e., to reflect and capitalize on tropical conditions – abundance of sunlight and wind – can reduce dramatically the use of and dependence on electricity.
Wind power does not produce by-products that are harmful to nature. Like solar power, harnessing the wind is highly dependent upon weather and location. It is simple and cost-effective, and with the Caribbean’s good wind conditions, onshore wind power can even cost less than conventional power. More importantly, the environmental benefits are huge. For example, two wind farms in the Netherlands will cut 5,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year from the atmosphere. Denmark is leading the world with 20% of its power coming from wind power. In some rural areas of Guyana, small wind turbines have been reintroduced in recent years. However, the infrastructural requirements and high costs limit them to a few light bulbs, a refrigerator and recharging batteries.
Geothermal energy, although not enough to replace more than a minor amount of the future's energy needs, should be considered. Obtained from the internal heat of the planet, it can be used to generate steam to run turbines, which in turn generate electricity. This power can be accessed from geothermal hotspots, i.e., volcano countries such as Montserrat and St. Vincent, where there is no need to drill deep into the earth.
In the continental states, i.e., Guyana, Belize and Surinam, as well as the larger islands, i.e., Jamaica, Barbados, bio-fuels (bio-diesel, bio-gas and bio-mass) have great promise. They have huge areas of arable lands for those crops which are used for generating environmentally friendly bio-fuels. The energy plants can be run by solar and/or bio-fuel energy.
Further, adopting carrot-measures to encourage newer models of automobiles and implementing transportation stick-taxing systems can be extremely useful, cost efficient and economically feasible ways of conserving energy and coping with energy crisis. Like the renewable energy sources, it would reduce costs through less use of gas, and ultimately reduce pollution and dependence on fossil fuel.
Adopting solar derived renewable technologies will only be effective through cumulative efforts of whole communities, at the national as well as the regional level. Government’s action is needed to redirect funding towards these ends and to remove institutional obstacles. Noting CARICOM’s growing demands for energy, the Inter American Development Bank (IDB) Sustainable Energy and Climate Change Initiative (SECCI) has pledged to finance selected programs and projects aimed at finding economically and environmentally sound energy options. But sustainability of the region requires more than financing selected projects; it requires huge investment inflows with long-term plans and initiatives. The implementation of such measures within CARICOM can only be achieved through facilitative legal frameworks and sustainable financing mechanisms. The carrot approach can be extremely useful in encouraging inter-States’ cooperation, and can be a valuable tool within individual economies to forge compliance among the various stakeholders.
CARICOM States must create regulatory framework that reward investment in energy efficiency, as few utilities have meaningful incentives to promote a product which may reduce their profit margins. This would foster long-term investment in least cost, sustainable energy resources, promote technological innovations and avoid polluting industries.
(For the complete article, see Ronald Singh, Advancing a "Carrot & Stick" Framework for CARICOM Environmental Cooperation and Governance, 16(1) PENN ST. ENVTL. L. REV. 244-49 (2007) and 37 ENVTL POLICY & LAW (Nos. 5 & 6) 483-85 (2007).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)