A negotiated 10-year prison sentence for a man who admitted repeatedly raping his three adolescent daughters has drawn the ire of the public for being too lenient.
But both jurists and child psychologists have defended the court’s decision to uphold the 10-year plea, albeit for different reasons.
Lawyers argue that negotiating a plea bargain rather than going to trial saves huge amounts of time, money and effort, which can then be diverted to other cases.
Psychologists point to the courtroom trauma the man’s three victims would have been forced to endure had they been made to testify.
Plea bargaining allows the defence and prosecution to negotiate an agreed sentence, in exchange for the defendant pleading guilty. Any sentence is subject to the approval of the presiding judge.
Educational psychologist Victor Martinelli saw at least two positives in sparing the victims the pain of a trial.
“No matter the circumstances, it can never be easy for a child to take the stand and testify against their own father. That is itself scarring.
“Secondly, not having to testify meant the children weren’t forced to revisit those terrible memories and reawaken the trauma. One hopes they now get all the psychological support they need,” Dr Martinelli said.
Another psychologist, who asked not to be named, said the arrangement made it easier for the victims to remain anonymous.
“Having a trial drag on for days or weeks would have made it easier for people to discover who this man was. At least this way the poor victims have a chance of not being exposed.”
The plea bargain mechanism also received the backing of one of Malta’s foremost criminal lawyers, Giannella de Marco.
“It’s practised all across Europe, saves time and money and makes the courts far more efficient. And as a safeguard, the judge has the right to reject an agreed-upon sentence.”
Dr de Marco voiced her concern at what she felt was the public’s misplaced outrage.
“The courts have to function within the parameters of existing laws. Is it judges’ fault that drug cultivation carries a higher maximum sentence than murder in this country?” she asked.
“Changing laws is the legislature’s job, not the judiciary’s. But we can’t have a situation where a sensationalist newspaper headline leads to mob rule and people demanding changed sentences without knowing the facts of a case.”
Criminal lawyer Michael Sciriha, who served as defence counsel in last Monday’s case, agreed with Dr de Marco.
“It’s one thing commenting as a bystander; it’s another if you can actually see which accusations can be proved or not.”
People often assumed sentences were plucked out of thin air, “but plea bargains are based on previous judgments,” Dr Sciriha noted.
It was left to retired judge Giovanni Bonello, who served on the European Court of Human Rights, to summarise the “delicate balancing act” that plea bargaining entailed.
“On the one hand, you have the interests of victims and those directly involved; on the other, those of broader society.”
In cases such as that of the rapist father, this balance was especially subjective, said Judge Bonello .
“Avoiding trial undoubtedly spared the poor children a lot of trauma.
“Does that balance out society’s interest to be protected? It’s all a matter of perspective – I don’t think there’s one cast-iron answer to that.”