Mallia’s prison carnival

When Jose Herrera made the rather bizarre announcement that he would be making a proposal to Cabinet for Malta to hold three carnivals a year, he probably didn’t realise that Manuel Mallia was already conducting the second one of 2013: as the justice minister announced to cheering prisoners that the Government would be granting them a 100-day amnesty.

This Government has already been littered with an unhealthy number of misjudgements in the very short time it has been in power – from the appointments it has made in certain areas to its arbitrary decision to move the monti hawkers; but this amnesty earns the dubious honour of being the worst to date.

Giving blanket amnesties to prisoners is wrong (previous administrations realised this, as one had not been awarded since 2000).

One, we have a justice system that should operate independently of the Government, and a move like this blurs that line; two, it fails to discriminate between prisoners deserving of an earlier release and those who are not; three, perhaps most importantly, it is an insult by the State to the victims of crime.

But those are not the only reasons that make this a bad decision. While in honeymoon period, the new Government is unlikely to be affected in popularity terms by poor decisions. This is different. It has rankled the public and prompted them to question whether Labour is in full control of its marbles – just three months into its term.

The manner in which Dr Mallia conveyed this message hardly helped matters. If an announcement of this nature had to be made – it didn’t for the reasons we have just listed – it should have been done either in the sober atmosphere of a press conference at his ministry or in the formal setting of Parliament.

The place not to do it was in a prison courtyard and then follow that up with a most distasteful show of vigorous handshaking and embraces with the people who have wronged society. One appreciates that given his profession, the minister may know some of them personally, but that was all the more reason why he should have had the good sense to keep a certain distance.

His defence of the move in Parliament only served to make things worse, as the justification he provided – which was more akin to a schoolboy’s excuse – was that the amnesty was granted due to the scale of Labour’s victory and also because 100 days is a minuscule amount for those who are serving long sentences.

All this is not to say that prisoners should not be treated with dignity and respect, or that strenuous efforts should not be made to give them a chance to re-enter society. Indeed, that is in everyone’s interest.

But the manner in which that is achieved differs markedly from what took place in the past week. It should involve structured programmes of education, involvement and remission as well as praiseworthy initiatives like putting on drama productions. It may also involve morale-boosting exercises like the dignified visit made by Auxiliary Bishop Charles Scicluna a few days before his Episcopal ordination.

What it should not be is a cheap political stunt that has angered the public; a carnival of the most grotesque sort.

More fundamentally such a move, along with some of Labour’s other dubious statements since taking office, makes people question where the Government’s priorities lie. In a very strange place, it would seem.