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framework for driving under the influence of alcohol through the introduction of new mechanisms to replace the present outdated apparatus - Carm Mifsud Bonnici.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 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.
8 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Grech
Mar 25th 2010, 17:21
I recently read an article which criticised the practice of Road Blocks by the Police and Army saying that such practice goes against fundamental human rights. I believe that the Police and Army should be allowed to continue these Road Inspections. How else can the far more serious proliferations of drugs and general crime be seriously tackled? Human Rights indeed! People would prefer to put Safety and the Fight againt Drug Peddling First! But some of our politicians seem to think otherwise....how sad and irresponsible of them! I believe that the successes registered by our Police / Army did not go down too well with influential people who may have their own agendas in drug and organised crime. Is our administration that blind not to notice this?
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.
Robert Callus
Mar 25th 2010, 15:05
There is nothing radical about this. It just emphasizes a legal system that it 'strong with the weak and weak with the strong'
What about corruption - the mother of all crimes? A crime that makes the majority of social ills (such as poverty, drug and human trafficking, environmental abuse and many other) possible? Yet some, continue to conveniently consider it a 'victimless crime'
Louise Vella
Mar 25th 2010, 12:36
II
In a radio phone-in on radio RTK last week, Archbishop Paul Cremona insisted that once he sends the file of an abusive priest to the Vatican and the priest is defrocked, he can do nothing more as the priest is no longer a priest. His conscience is therefore at peace and he does not feel the need to inform the public or the police that a particular priest was dismissed because of sexual abuse. He is not bound by civil law to inform the police that a paedophile priest has been defrocked because of sexual abuse of children.
Fine! But sexual abuse of children is a crime and not just an offence against the Church's rules. I believe that it's about time that the Maltese parliament passes a law to impose mandatory reporting to civil authorities by institutions, including the Church, of any person suspected of child abuse within the institution and to prosecute officials of organizations/institutions for covering up sexual abuse of children.
Regarding such a serious matter as child abuse I do think there's a very grave responsibility on everybody in positions of leadership to do everything possible to ensure the protection of children.
Louise Vella
Mar 25th 2010, 12:35
I
Minister Mifsud Bonnici must surely be aware of what is happening in many countries where for many years sexual abuse of children by priests went unreported and covered up by the church hierarchy. This resulted in great harm to a large number of children. Having been a practising lawyer for 20 years, Minister Mifsud Bonnici must also be aware that the same pattern of misconduct was/is also occurring in Malta, with all documents relating to child abuse by Maltese priests being kept in the most secret archives of the Maltese Curia.
Joseph Schembri
Mar 25th 2010, 11:41
I am all for harsher penalties and rehabilitation of real paedophiles (people who have sex with pre-pubescent children). However in Malta the age of consent is set at the incredibly high level of 18 years. It is the highest in Europe. So in Malta doing anything much more than just holding hands with someone younger than 18, (even just a few weeks younger) is illegal and the penalties have just become much harsher. It is a crime even if both persons involved consent!
If we want to be realistic and stop sending perfectly decent people to prison, the age of consent and the definition of a minor should be lowered.