By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

KINGSTON, Jamaica — Jamaican leaders want tougher punishments for people who sexually abuse children.

Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller told the People’s National Party Women’s Movement conference this week that Justice Minister Mark Golding is looking at ways to strengthen child abuse laws.

“What you need to do is stop it,” Miller said.  “A woman represents motherhood.  A woman is now prime minister of Jamaica.  Stop it.”

The comments came after government figures showed more than 1,000 reports of sexual abuse against children through April of this year, according to the Jamaica Observer.  Between 2007 and 2011, more than 7,200 cases were reported.

Recent United Nations studies indicated only a handful of child sex abuse cases in the Caribbean and Latin America lead to convictions.  Marcelo Suarzo, the UN Populations Fund regional director, said it is unclear if the problem is with the laws or enforcement of the laws.

“What I am sure of is that impunity is the worst solution to sexual violence,” Suarzo said in an interview with the Jamaica Observer, adding that only two percent of reported cases in the region result in justice.

A school-based study conducted by the U.S. Agency for International Development in 2007 showed that one in three Jamaican girls between the ages of 10 and 15 experiences her first sexual encounter by force.  Roughly 12 percent of young girls reported having sexual intercourse before they turned 15 years old.

“The issue needs an integrated response,” Suarzo told the Observer.  “We need to strengthen our policies, make the appropriate investments and work closely to identify cases to ensure an integrated response from all the systems that are in charge of the application of justice.”

It appears the dialogue may already be having some effect.  Not only has there been a spike in the number of reported cases of child sex abuse, but there also has been a number of high-profile prosecutions.

On Friday, a former commandant of Jamaica’s Special Constabulary Force will be sentenced after he was convicted earlier this month on two counts of indecent assault on a minor.  The jury acquitted Harold Crooks, however, of carnal abuse since he and the teenage girl had sexual intercourse after she turned 16, Jamaica’s age of consent.

Earlier this month, a Kingston doctor was charged with four counts of committing sexual offenses against two teenage girls.  A report by a Jamaican police watchdog group called the Constabulary Communication Network alleged that Dr. Rakesh Thomas lured the girls, ages 14 and 15, to his office several times to engage in sexual grooming, touching, and intercourse.

And in June, a Jamaican national was sentenced in U.S. federal court to 18 months in prison for sexually abusing a minor on the cruise ship where he worked.  According to his plea agreement, Fabian Palmer befriended the 14-year-old girl and had sexual intercourse with her during a cruise last December.

At a recent meeting with Jamaica Observer editors and reporters, Jamaica’s UNICEF representative said more incidents are being reported to police “because [people] are realizing that silence is violence.”

Still, Robert Fuderich said the effort to stop the violence cannot stop there.

“There needs to be zero-tolerance,” he said.

For further information, please see:

Go Jamaica — Portia says Tougher Penalties Coming for Child Abusers — 16 July 2012

Jamaica Observer — Too Much Impunity for Sex Offenders, Says UN Official — 6 July 2012

Jamaica Observer — Former Police Commandant Found Guilty on Sex Charge — 5 July 2012

Stabroek News — Jamaican Doctor Charged with Sex Offences Against Girls — 2 July 2012

San Francisco Chronicle — Cruise Ship Worker Sentenced for Abusing Minor — 29 June 2012

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

MEXICO CITY, Mexico — A new report released Wednesday said Mexico is not doing enough to protect women despite increasing levels of violence and discrimination.

Human rights group Amnesty International issued the report to a United Nations committee, highlighting the rising number of crimes against women and the low success rate of Mexican authorities to convict offenders.

“The state of women’s rights in Mexico is alarming,” said Rupert Knox, a researcher at AI.  “In the past years, Mexico has approved a number of laws and institutions designed to protect women from discrimination and violence.  Much of the problem, however, lies in the lack of effective implementation of these laws and the weaknesses of the institutions.”

The report said Mexican police solve about one of every 21 rapes.  It also accused the police of having flawed procedures for documenting murders of women, including the failure of carrying out proper autopsies in many cases.

According to the report, U.N. figures show there were more than 34,000 women murdered in Mexico between 1985 and 2009.  In 2010 alone, 2,418 women were murdered, the report said.  That averaged to nearly seven murders per day.

One area that has seen a sharp increase in murders of women is the state of Chihuahua, the report said.  In 2010, one of every 11 victims was a woman, compared to one of every 14 in 2008.  Through June, there were more than 130 killings of women in Chihuahua alone.

Mexican prosecutors received nearly 15,000 complaints of rape in 2009, although AI estimates the number actually reached 74,000 since a small percentage of rapes are reported.  Of the cases prosecuted, AI said only 2,795 ended with a conviction.

“The poor quality investigations by Mexico state prosecutors also undermined the outcome of judicial proceedings, ensuring acquittals and decisions not to prosecute,” the report alleged.

To prove that point, AI referenced a 2006 case when Mexican police allegedly sexually abused 26 women arrested during protests in the town of San Salvador.  Several police officers were charged in the incident, but all were acquitted for a lack of evidence.  Nine of the women have now taken their cases to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

AI is calling on both outgoing President Felipe Calderón and President-elect Enrique Peña Nieto to do more to stem the violence against women.

“The Mexican authorities, led by both the actual and new government to take office in December, must move to implement commitments to protect women’s rights to end abuses and impunity,” Knox said.

For further information, please see:

GlobalPost — Amnesty International: Mexico Failing to Protect Women from Violence, Discrimination — 12 July 2012

Latin American Herald Tribune — AI Criticizes Impunity for Violence Against Women in Mexico — 12 July 2012

Amnesty International — Mexico Fails to Tackle Increased Levels of Violence Against Women — 11 July 2012

Chicago Tribune — Report Chides Female Violence in State of Mexico’s President-Elect — 11 July 2012

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, United States — The Supreme Court issued a split decision Monday on the controversial Arizona law aimed at deterring illegal immigration.

The court differed on three key provisions of the law.  In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy said those other portions of the Arizona law could not be enforced due to the federal government’s broad powers in setting immigration policy.

“The national government has significant power to regulate immigration,” Justice Kennedy wrote.  “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process (of the federal government figuring out how to best carry out its immigration power) continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”

Specifically, the three provisions required immigrants to always carry immigration papers, banned illegal immigrants from trying to get work in public places, and allowed police to arrest immigrants without warrants, so long as the officers believed the immigrants were committing crimes that would deport them.  The votes on these provisions were either 5-3 or 6-2 in favor of declaring them unconstitutional, with the more conservative justices dissenting.

The justices unanimously upheld, however, the so-called “show me your papers” provision at the core of the law.  It requires local law enforcement authorities to determine the immigration status of anyone who’s stopped or arrested, so long as there is “reasonable suspicion” the person is illegally in the United States.

“There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced,” Kennedy wrote, emphasizing that state officials must obey all federal laws in checking a person’s immigration status or face additional constitutional challenges.

Opponents fear this portion of the law would lead to racial profiling.

“I know they will not be using that kind of tactic on people with the last name Roberts, Romney, or Brewer, but if your name is something like Gutierrez or Chung or Obama, watch out,” Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois told CNN.  He is a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.  “The express goal of the authors of Arizona’s [immigration law] is to make life miserable for immigrants so that they will leave, and a key tool in that effort was upheld by the court.”

Arizona’s immigration law, passed in 2010, was the first of half a dozen states to adopt laws aimed at removing illegal immigrants.  Reuters reports that three percent of the country’s illegal immigrants, or about 360,000, live in Arizona.  Nevertheless, most of the state’s two million Hispanics are legal residents.

According to CNN, neither the Arizona Department of Public Safety nor the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police was clear on whether authorities would begin checking drivers’ immigration status while enforcing other laws.  Questions were referred to the state’s attorney general’s office.

Despite the split ruling, both parties declared the Court’s ruling a win.  President Obama was “pleased” the justices struck down the three key provisions of the law, while Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, called the decision “a victory for the rule of law.”  She also assured that police engaged in racial profiling would be punished.

Among those upset with the Court’s decision was Justice Antonin Scalia, who read an angry dissent from the bench.  He said he would have upheld the entire Arizona law.

“[T]o say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind,” Scalia said in reference to Obama’s recent executive order stopping deportation for certain young people in the United States illegally.

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she had worked on it as Obama’s solicitor general.

For further information, please see:

The Supreme Court — Opinion, Arizona v. United States — 25 June 2012

The Associated Press — Court Hampers Romney’s Plea to Hispanics — 25 June 2012

CNN — Supreme Court Mostly Rejects Arizona Immigration Law; Gov says ‘Heart’ Remains — 25 June 2012

The New York Times — Blocking Parts of Arizona Law, Justices Allow its Centerpiece — 25 June 2012

Reuters — Supreme Court Has Split Verdict on Arizona Immigration Law — 25 June 2012