This is your justice system on drugs

A sort of sequential predictability in what would otherwise be random, unrelated events... and for some reason, it always seems to revolve around DRUGS.
For instance: around two weeks ago, Carm Mifsud Bonnici (Justice AND Home Affairs Minister, though quite frankly you'd forgiven for thinking neither post actually exists) announced a whole raft of amendments to the Criminal Code - including a proposal to waive criminal charges for first-time drug offenders, at the discretion of the Attorney General.

Within days of this announcement, it seems the entire country suddenly tested positive for sheer drug pottiness. First we had the police descending like juggernauts upon Paceville, only to proudly announce the arrest of six people for simple possession of cannabis. The suspects were aged between 16 and 19 (though strangely, news reports referred to them as 'men' and 'women' - amazing how quickly we confer the responsibly of adulthood when it suits a certain purpose). It wasn't clear whether any had a prior conviction for drug offences, but if any did, I can only surmise they had started smoking pot before being potty trained.

Was the timing of this drug bust a coincidence? Possibly. But coincidental or otherwise, it blatantly contradicts the declared policy of the man who is (or is meant to be) politically responsible for both the police and for Malta's entire anti-drug strategy.

It works like this: Carm Mifsud Bonnici argues that one particular category of drug user - basically, the teenager smoking dope in Paceville - should be let off with a warning instead of facing criminal charges. So what do the police do? Why, they arrest the first six teenagers they find smoking dope in Paceville, of course, and arraign them in court on criminal charges. What else?

Like all good coincidences, this one is neither isolated nor out of character. In fact it is exactly how the police has always behaved when faced with a perceived 'threat' to its traditional way of doing things. Some of you might recall a recent brouhaha about access to lawyers during detention/interrogation - well, 'recent' in relative terms: Eddie Fenech Adami had virtually promised this right on live TV in 1987, shortly before the election that put the PN in power. (The clip is incidentally still available on YouTube). Evidently it was one of those promises that would slip his mind upon becoming Prime Minister: another 25 years would go by before the right of legal assistance while under arrest - a right so universal and basic that it has become almost a Hollywood mantra - was finally introduced... and even then, we still somehow managed to botch it altogether.

But remember who it was who argued most vociferously against its introduction? Commissioner John Rizzo, of course, who claimed on TV that allowing suspects access to legal advice would hinder the police's ability to 'solve crimes'. (Translation: with lawyers present for interrogations, they'd actually have to come up evidence of guilt before charging people in court).

So much for the police: which accounts for only one half of Carm Mifsud Bonnici's uber-ministry. To be honest it is the second half - the law courts - that have made the most headlines in connection with drug cases in the past few weeks: starting with the curious case of Daniel Holmes (35, Welsh, etc) sentenced to 11 years jail and fined €23,000 for growing two cannabis plants in his Ghajnsielem apartment.

I say 'curious', because within days of his conviction another man (Peter Joseph Bonnici, 41 from Zejtun) was similarly convicted of marijuana cultivation, and sentenced to seven years and six months and a fine of €17,400. Only in this case, the amount of cannabis involved was no fewer than 179 cultivated plants, 513 dried plants and 1,785 marijuana seeds.
No, I assure you the above sequence is correct. The number of cannabis plants found in Bonnici's possession was a staggering 89 times higher than those discovered at Holmes' Gozo apartment - and that's just the live plants: factor in the dead ones (not to mention the seeds) and... no, sorry, the mathematics is simply beyond me. And yet Bonnici's sentence works out at around 60% lower, in both jail-time and fine, than that given to Holmes.

I have to admit that for once, I am lost for words. Like a certain prominent lawyer before me, my eyes have dashed for cover behind my ears. I mean, honestly: they could almost be court rulings from different countries, applying different laws based on different standards, and handed down in different centuries to boot. And yet not only did they emerge from the same jurisdiction, applying the same penal code and within just four days of each other: but the sentences were even decided upon by the same judge.
And this is just one drug-related legal anomaly among countless others. A couple of weeks later and yet another drug related issue crops up in court. Different judge this time, but I'm sure I'm not alone in experiencing a sense of déjà vu.

Consider the facts of the case: Joanne Bickle, 40 from Valletta, was this week convicted of drug trafficking and given a 12-year sentence and a fine of €23,000: one year out of synch, but otherwise practically identical to the Holmes sentence, described above. The only difference concerns the crime.

Cultivation of two cannabis plants? Not exactly. Looks more like a fully-fledged drug trafficking ring to me - heroin, cocaine, cannabis, 'this-place-has-everything-come-on-I'll-show-you' sort of thing - only out of the comfort of a prison cell. And to cap it all, the judge himself pointed out that there was the apparent collusion of prison warders in the operation.
Makes you think, doesn't it? One of the things I think about is the irony, whereby the current acting prison director Abraham Zammit (along with three prison warders I never even heard of) is suing me over an article I wrote about prison conditions earlier this year. Among the allegations reported in that article (as allegations, please note) was precisely the ease of availability of drugs in prison. Strangely, though, while Zammit and his colleagues had no hesitation is suing me for repeating that claim, they have not to date sued the clinical director of Sedqa, Dr George Grech (whom I quoted in the article). I suppose, for consistency's sake, he will not sue Mr Justice Michael Mallia either... despite the fact that he said exactly the same thing in court last Thursday.

Nor is this the only paradox that immediately leaps to the eye. So Bickle - dubbed (the 'Queen of Prison' by one newspaper - is found guilty of dealing drugs in jail (her own sovereign territory, to continue the metaphor) and therefore sentenced to... erm... prison.

Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? In fact it reminds me of that old Br'er Rabbit story: "Oh please Br'er Fox, whatever you do, please don't throw me into the briar patch... Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please... Only don't throw me into the briar patch, please don't" (Ah, good old Uncle Remus: more than just a tasty savoury snack, I always used to say...)
In this case, the judge himself underscored the flawless logic in his own ruling. This is how it was reported: "The verdict, the court said, was not just against Bickle but against the system which allowed her free rein for such a long time. This was a system which had failed and was not correctional. Prisoners who were relatively clean were at serious risk of ending up worse than when they were taken to prison."
Hmm. Forgive me for interjecting, but... if the verdict was "not just against Bickle but
against the system"... then why is it only Bickle - and not also the system - who actually winds up in jail? And if prison is itself "not correctional" - actually, worse: if prison not only fails to "correct" criminals, but even serves to harden criminal resolve, improve criminal contacts and hone individual criminal prowess - then where is the sense in perpetuating this text-book example of compounded systemic failure, by committing more, more and MORE people to prison... even in cases where the Justice Minister himself argues that they shouldn't be charged in court?

To be fair, the court does have an answer to this last question. "Yet these prisoners had no choice as Malta had only one prison and until this matter was controlled, this would harm society."
Ah well: that changes everything, doesn't it? Crimes harm society, and the prison system has clearly failed. So why not combine these two premises, and complete the syllogism routinely imprisoning as many convicted criminals - knowing full well that they will eventually emerge as more dangerous criminals than when they were originally convicted.

That, of course, doesn't harm society one tiny bit. On the contrary, society stands to gain enormously by preserving the status quo. True, you get to wait a while before seeing any dividends on your initial investment: but it's worth every minute, for in time not only will we end up with more criminals than we started with: but they'll be better criminals, too. Fully qualified professionals, with internationally-recognised diplomas certified by the Corradino University of Crime. 

Honestly: how could we possibly go wrong?