KINGSTON, Jamaica — Jamaicans have expressed mixed reactions to a proposal by the National Security Council (NSC) to increase the mandatory minimum sentence for gun crimes from 15 to 20 years, with some welcoming the move as a crime-fighting measure while others believe the penalty is too harsh.
Observer Online took to the streets to gauge public opinion on the proposal, which was announced Sunday by the NSC, chaired by Prime Minister Andrew Holness.
The proposal has already drawn criticism from the Opposition People’s National Party (PNP), with Opposition Spokesperson on Justice, Zuleika Jess, arguing that it was put forward “without adequately addressing the legislation’s flaws”.
The existing 15-year mandatory minimum sentence under the Firearms (Prohibition, Restriction and Regulation) Act, 2022, has also faced scrutiny from members of the legal fraternity, who have raised concerns about its broad application and staged demonstrations calling for legislative reform.
Speaking with Observer Online, some individuals supported the proposed increase, arguing that tougher penalties could deter individuals from possessing illegal firearms and help curb gun violence.
“Twenty year minimum, 20 years. It’s a bit harsh, but I feel like the Government is working a way to try to reduce crime because there’s a lot of fatality with gunman and all of them things…” one respondent said.
Another agreed, suggesting that the prospect of spending two decades behind bars could discourage illegal firearm possession.
“I think it’s appropriate because if you know you’re going to get sentenced to 20 years for having illegal firearms, [would] you put yourself in that position? No, I agree with it,” she said.
Another Jamaican encouraged those interested in owning firearms to pursue legal avenues rather than risk facing criminal penalties.
“Gun is a thing weh protect you and thing. Some man use it fi do wrong thing, some use it fi do the right but sometimes you can get right out of wrong same way. You have to just get your thing license, go to the proper place and look bout your thing. If you love gun so much, prefer you have a gun license or if you wah really be a gunholder, go inna the force or go join the JDF or police,” he said.
However, not everyone was convinced that a longer mandatory sentence was justified.
One respondent described the proposal as excessive, raising concerns about the consequences for young people who may become involved in firearm-related offences without having committed a violent act.
“I believe that it is excessive. I’m thinking that 20 years of someone’s life is like a half of their lifetime. What time would you get for one mistake? Especially if it’s a situation where you did not commit a crime, as in murder anyone or shoot up anyone or even use a firearm. Suppose it’s a situation where your teenager or young adult was caught up in bad company. It’s a harsh penalty. Your entire future is lost in 20 years,” she said.