The matter of plea-bargaining or plea-agreement practices in Jamaica has been surfacing over the past months. It has been mentioned most recently by Justice Martin Gayle, one of the country's leading high court officials in The Sunday Gleaner of April 19. He suggested that plea-bargaining would have a positive impact on the backlog of court cases if such an act was implemented.

On April 21, an article from Dr Canute Thompson was published in the Opinion section of your paper in which he noted some of the pros and cons and some very important issues in regards to plea-bargaining and the search for justice. In his final statement Dr Thompson made it clear that "plea-bargaining is not a transparent process", and I agree with such a declaration.

Drawbacks to agreement

Dr Thompson, in his assessment, has pointed to some of the drawbacks to plea agreements. In the US, many Jamaican immigrants who have been charged with an offence or a crime have settled their 'conviction' by way of plea-bargaining that avoids harsher punishment or even deportation.

In 1996, the Illegal Immigration Reform Act (IIRA) came into being and plea-bargaining convic-tions make these immigrants deportable.

However, the United States Supreme Court got involved in (2001) St Cyr vs INS and made a very important decision that, "relief from deportation remains available to certain classes of aliens or immigrants who had received convictions by way of plea-bargaining if such aliens were not deportable at the time of their plea-bargaining". However, it appears that there is very little scrutiny to the way in which the IIRA of 1996 is applied and interpreted because the Government of Jamaica still accepts individuals who should not have been deported.

Therefore, the issue of plea-bargaining in Jamaica is worthy of a public debate prior to its implementation, because there are other problems associated with the practice.

I am, etc.,

CHARLIE BROWN

charliebrown1004@hotmail.com