Advert

Heavier penalties proposed to close doors on crime

The Bill introduced a new framework for driving under the influence of alcohol through the introduction of new mechanisms to replace the present outdated apparatus - Carm Mifsud Bonnici.

The Bill introduced a new framework for driving under the influence of alcohol through the introduction of new mechanisms to replace the present outdated apparatus - Carm Mifsud Bonnici.

The government is increasing penalties and further enforcing legislation to prevent modern delinquency, such as sexual exploitation of minors with the use of information technology, and fight crime.

Introducing the Various Laws (Criminal Matters) Amendment Bill, Justice Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici said this was the second proposal linked to security in Malta, and that the third would be presented at the start of next year.

This second package was intended to introduce security measures including the mechanisms that the EU was promoting. Legislation was being extended to include 70 additional clauses with increased penalties.

The Bill amended various laws related to criminal matters and acknowledged that legislative steps needed to be taken to cater for today's needs and close existing loopholes. He explained how the Bill would amend the Criminal Code in terms of child pornography and soliciting, traffic contraventions, driving under the influence of alcohol, gas cannons, possession of arms or items of a nuclear, radioactive nature, and money laundering, among others.

At the top of the list, Dr Mifsud Bonnici said, was the need to protect minors who were increasingly exposed to dangerous situations brought about by modern electronic and information technology.

The Bill would give adequate empowerment to institutions in protecting minors from sexual perpetrators. This, he said, would also allow for an increased number of legislative clauses to cover child pornography and the sexual or non-sexual soliciting of minors through the internet. The minister emphasised that steps towards fighting these crimes were crucial.

The Bill would also introduce heavier penalties across frontiers.

A step forward would be made towards a legal framework that allowed for a public register of sexual offenders. This would strictly prohibit the perpetrator's proximity to children in educational institutions and other activities where minors were present. When one was convicted of such an offence, the prohibition should form part of the criminal record.

The Criminal Code would also increase penalties for traffic contraventions, because drivers who respected the law needed to be protected from those who did not.

Speaking about traffic contraventions, Dr Mifsud Bonnici said that there was a need in Malta to increase such penalties. The amendments the Bill was introducing were many. Jumping traffic lights would become a crime rather than a contravention, because the driver would be endangering other people's lives. This would also include the use of mobile phones while driving, as well as tighter regulations on the wearing of seatbelts. There had been 8,000 cases of contraventions by people not using seatbelts, and some had included children.

The Bill introduced a new framework for driving under the influence of alcohol through the introduction of new mechanisms to replace the present outdated apparatus. But if suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol, one could still be stopped and traditional means of identifying these drivers would continue to be used. Refusal to take a breathalyser test would be considered a crime on the presumption that such refusal would be due to driving under the influence of alcohol.

The Bill also introduced automatically higher penalties in cases of homicide, in which more than one person lost their life or suffered involuntary serious injury.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici spoke about the need for an ad hoc article prohibiting the use of gas cannons that caused small timed explosions disturbing the public peace.

The Bill made joint investigations with other countries possible. Using the example of the Malta-registered Russian vessel Arctic Sea, he mentioned the efficacy of the Prum Treaty. Malta had obtained EU funds to introduce an updated system of criminal records, and success in fighting crime in the future depended on this type of advancement. The Lisbon Treaty also laid down that every country had to set up a committee to monitor internal security.

The Bill also outlawed the sale of toy firearms. Anybody breaking the law would lose their licence. Another amendment prohibited the transfer of radioactive or nuclear material.

The minister called for a stronger criminal code that increased the number of crimes covered and penalties therefor. Harsher penalties were needed to combat modern methods of crime. The number of reported cases to the police had dwindled, but stronger law enforcement was needed to guarantee people's fundamental right to individual protection. There was no crime that was not considered important, he added.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici said that prison sentences were to be increased from 18 months to five years in cases of exposing minors to indecent photography, pornographic images and recordings, simulated visual images and even cartoons. These radical changes were needed because of the increased use of information technology, making minors more vulnerable than before.

A person who used information technology to meet and exploit a minor for sexual purposes could be handed a prison sentence from 12 months to four years. The Bill also contemplated heavier penalties for people taking part in sex tourism involving minors and other people considered at risk.

The minister referred to the sex offenders register and said this should not be limited to perpetrators but should also include others who would have been instrumental in the crime. Police individual records had to include sentences delivered abroad to persons found guilty of sexual abuse.

Advert

8 Comments

Post comment

Comments are submitted under the express understanding and condition that the editor may, and is authorised to, disclose any/all of the above personal information to any person or entity requesting the information for the purposes of legal action on grounds that such person or entity is aggrieved by any comment so submitted.

At this time your comment will not be displayed immediately upon posting. Please allow some time for your comment to be moderated before it is displayed.

Your User Profile is incomplete.
Please click here to complete your profile before posting comments.

D Phillips

Mar 25th 2010, 18:05

The critiscism and subsequent questioning of the legality of these road blocks is based on the indiscriminate nature of them. In any civilised country indiscrimate stopping, questioning and searching of citizens is not something that should be encouraged or allowed, this is a situation more akin to a dictatorship or police state. Roadblocks may well indeed catch the odd youngster with a joint or indeed one without driving without insurance, however i'm not entirely sure that that would constitute a significant success in the fight against crime. Ultimately road blocks impinge on the civil liberties and human rights of the law abiding majority whilst making no difference whatsoever to the big players in the criminal world. Lets face it, more effective policing methods, intelligence gathering etc etc would probably give better results, rather than the random hit or miss style of road blocks.

Jonathan Saliba

Mar 26th 2010, 10:29

Road blocks by the police and army also manage to stop stolen vehicles, drunk drivers, concealed weapons, dangerous drugs (such as cocaine) and criminals breaching home arrest provisions. These law enforcement tools also help in the recovery of stolen property, prevention of serious crime as well as retrieval of missing persons including minorrs.

Granted that road blocks alone do not eradicate crime, but no one can say that they do not reduc the incidence of crime. One can not dismiss the importance of reducing the fear of crime through police presence, including road blocks. Removing this tool will just reduce the effectiveness of our law enforcers. What should the public call for, would be the review of the system and propose ameliorating ammendments to it, should any shortcommings be identified.

I'm all for civil liberties but I am also a strong supporter of the social contract. That is that society agrees to reduce some of its liberties in order to live peacefuly, i.e. one relinqishes the freedom to hurt others , so as to be protected from others hurting them. It is all to easy to complain indiscriminately, it is far more difficult to give viable and constructive criticism.

D Phillips

Mar 26th 2010, 13:00

Hi Jonathon, There are 3 issues as I see it. One, a legal point, with ECHR, at this point, examining the legality of the procedures used. The second is the whether the success rate of these is such, that a argument can be put forward, whereby the implementation of such searches supersedes the human rights/civil liberties of the citizen. Thirdly, the impact on crime figures in direct correlation to man hours used/ overall cost.
Taking figures mentioned last Sunday, 140 roadblocks/1159 vehicles checked – 67 individuals detained, not a fantastic return by any measure. 1159 vehicles checked, say, conservatively, 2 people per vehicle, = 2318 persons searched. 67 detained. 2-3% hit rate. In any situation, in any walk of life that cannot be seen as a success. The money spent on manning these roadblocks would be better off being invested in more intelligence gathering and more effective policing measures.
So, after the process has over-ridden the rights of the, mainly law abiding, individual, the process is also shown, statistically, to be ineffectual. The fact remains that this style of policing is more relevant to police states where the power of the police/ army is absolute rather than democratic, progressive countries.

Advert
Advert