Selective Justice?

While we understand that the final administrative decision to deport a foreign national rests with the Immigration and Border Protection authorities under the Ministry of Justice, the suspension or termination of the pre-trial detention of a criminal suspect falls within the criminal justice process, in which the Public Prosecutor’s Office plays a central role.

Ultimately, the prosecutor determines whether a suspect stays in the criminal justice pipeline. Once the prosecutor releases that hold, the administrative decision on the immigration or deportation measure falls back on the Ministry of Justice and the competent immigration authorities.

This raises a broader and more troubling question: Are we administratively flying blind?

The Public Prosecutor’s Office has acknowledged that its case-management system primarily records information required for criminal prosecution. Because prison overcrowding and the lack of available detention capacity are treated as administrative rather than substantive elements of a criminal case, statistics are apparently not maintained on how many suspects have been released, or have had their detention suspended, specifically because no cell capacity was available.

If this information is not being systematically recorded by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the prison, the police, Immigration, or another department within the Ministry of Justice, then how can the Government accurately assess the public-safety consequences of releasing suspects because of insufficient detention capacity?

This is particularly concerning given the serious crimes affecting Sint Maarten. We have witnessed shootings involving businesses and business owners in and around Philipsburg, including incidents in broad daylight. Armed robberies, scooter and vehicle thefts, burglaries, and home invasions continue to contribute to a growing sense of insecurity.

The consequences go beyond the immediate victims. Repeated robberies and other serious offenses place long-term financial pressure on our economy when insurers increase premiums, impose additional conditions, or become reluctant to insure businesses because of the frequency and severity of criminal activity.

A justice system cannot effectively deter crime if offenders come to believe that the likelihood of remaining in detention is reduced simply because the prison is full. Nor can the Government properly manage the problem if the relevant agencies do not maintain the data necessary to determine how often this is occurring and what happens to those suspects afterward.

This issue has been raised repeatedly, yet we continue to make major justice-policy decisions without clear answers to some of the most basic questions concerning detention capacity, outstanding sentences, the release of suspects, and the deportation of foreign suspects.

The fundamental issue is therefore not simply whether the prison is full. It is whether Sint Maarten has a coordinated system capable of tracking what happens after a suspect can no longer be detained.

If suspects are being released because there is no available cell capacity, while the Public Prosecutor’s Office, Immigration, police, and prison administration each maintain separate information and no authority has a complete picture of what ultimately happens to these individuals, then the Minister must explain how it is measuring and managing the resulting public-safety risk.

The public deserves to know whether these individuals are serving their sentences, being deported, being prohibited from returning, or simply disappearing from the administrative radar.

This also brings us directly to the issue of equal treatment.

While the Minister speaks about equal treatment within the prison system, violent suspects are being apprehended and, in some cases, released because there is simply no space to hold them as mentioned already.

Where is the equality for the law-abiding citizen whose home is invaded, whose business is stormed, or who is held at gunpoint, only to see the alleged offender apprehended and then released because of a lack of detention capacity?

Prominent businesspeople have approached me asking: “What is your Government doing? How can someone break into my home, get caught, and now be free?”

These are legitimate questions that deserve answers.

We cannot speak about equality only in terms of those who are incarcerated while ignoring the rights and safety of the people the justice system is supposed to protect. Suspects accused of serious crimes can find themselves back on the streets, carrying on with their daily lives and potentially planning their next move, while their victims are left living with fear and insecurity.

So I ask the Minister: How can the Government insist on equal treatment inside the prison while accepting a situation in which law-abiding citizens bear the consequences of violent suspects being released simply because there is no space to detain them?

If equality before the law is the principle we are defending, then surely that equality must also extend to the victims and the wider society that the law exists to protect.

That is the contradiction at the heart of this issue: we cannot demand strict equality in the application of justice inside the prison while allowing a lack of capacity and administrative coordination to create unequal consequences for the law-abiding people outside of it.

Are those who terrorize our homes, businesses, and citizens somehow less of a priority than those facing imprisonment for white-collar offenses? If not, then clearly explain what the priorities are, because trust in the judicial system cannot simply be demanded—it must be earned.

Let us not allow our society to be degraded with priorities hedged as political bets and not as a service to society.

‍