Introduction
2021 was the year when robbery cases in Zimbabwe hit a maximum. Statistics from the Zimbabwe Republic Police are suggestive of the fact that, the robbery scare in Zimbabwe is real. At least, on average ratings, the streets of Zimbabwe had existed as safe tourist havens. In the Sub-Saharan region, Zimbabwe enjoys a tag as one of the safest destinations for civilians and foreigners alike. However, the year 2021 opened up a can of worms regarding the extent of security in Zimbabwe. Ex-security and intelligence details have also been implicated. The policing quality of the country was put to a test of its time and serious concerns have been raised. Social media and the public domain have been the most informative platforms, with citizens hearkening to proffer solutions for curtailing armed robbery. This opinion piece seeks to analyse two of the most applied crime control methods in various jurisdictions.
The crime of robbery
Robbery is a form of crime where one’s valuables are stolen through the use or threat of physical force or compulsion. Depending on the nature of weapons used or level of force applied to induce fear, robbery can be deduced as armed robbery or ordinary robbery. In the latter form, injurious weapons such as a gun, knife or metal rods are used to force the victim into surrendering their properties. In most robbery cases, victims are left dead while the unfortunate ones are left permanently injured. The lucky ones suffer minor injuries. It is agreed however that, in all robbery cases, victims suffer eternal trauma and would therefore require the services of a psychologist.
A more violent crime?
The PTSD Group, a psychology therapy research institute documents that armed robberies can have detrimental long-term impacts, leaving victims in a state of fight and flight mode. A robbery incident keeps the amygdala (the fear center of the brain) over-stimulated. This is because, the central element on the commission of this crime is fear. Since robbers need to instill the much needed fear, they often make use of all sorts of gruesome antics on their victims. Apart from property loss, victims of robbery often experience emotional imbalances as a result of the fear they encounter. Due to its kind, unlike theft or pickpocketing, robbery is distinguished for its violent nature; leaving the victim traumatized. It is for this compelling reason that, there has been a countrywide call for all the arms of the government to act decisively in dealing with this crime lest Zimbabwe loses its safety status.
Options open to the government
The government consists of the executive, legislature and the judiciary. All the three arms have coherent yet distinctive functionalities. In other words, their function is complementary. The President of Zimbabwe registered concern over armed robbery and pondered around the prospects of ‘shoot to kill’ policing method for armed robbers. However, the introduction of a mandatory minimum sentence is also a viable solution if tapped in. In this part of the publication, I focused on the option of a mandatory minimum sentences option.
Mandatory minimum sentence
The legislature when faced with an upsurge of specific criminal nuisances, can invoke a mandatory minimum sentence. This is a law that regulates the judiciary’s power to hand a sentence upon a convicted individual. It has an effect of extending the normal stipulated sentences for a certain crime into a predefined minimum term. Thus, the judiciary will have to waive its powers to the legislature, which powers the legislature generally does not own. The nuisance of a mandatory minimum sentence therefore, is to take away the court’s discretion when sentencing, which discretion may lead to a lenient sentence being given for the same crime committed in different circumstances. Thus, the rationale is to sway the court from due process towards a crime control approach. Its effect is to set aside such normal considerations as; age of offender, type of force applied and value of property stolen. It just sets a bar and is instructive of what the court must follow.
Conflict of mandate
While conflict of mandate would appear, the doctrine of governmental complementarity weighs in to ensure that these arms of government team up against a social nemesis. When stock theft cases sky-rocketed, the legislature was quick to invoke the mandatory minimum sentence. The purpose of a mandatory minimum sentence is to send a stern signal to members of the public that a certain crime is not tolerated. It is a punitive form of criminal regulation that has precedence in most common law jurisdictions. In crime control jurisdictions such as China, the mandatory minimum sentences are widely applied for a greater number of crimes. Even for some trivial crimes, this phenomenon is applied in high crime intolerant parts of Asia. Profs. Tonry and Michael H in Sentencing matters weigh in the subject, opining that, mandatory minimum sentences generally have public support in as far as they send a direct warning to would-be offenders. This is despite the fact that; they encroach into the judiciary’s turf. It is suggested that, such encroachment is a necessary evil.
Conclusion
In as much as the principle of separation of powers would suffer at the instance of legislative intervention, mandatory minimum sentences can be an actionable solution to robbery. Further, the complementarity of the arms of government doctrine is salient here, coupled with the obvious need to ensure safety guidelines against its abuse so as to conform with standard democratic governance. Mandatory minimum sentence is key to steer Zimbabwe into a safe and law-abiding nation. Munashe O’brian Gutu is a law graduate from the University of Zimbabwe. He is also a social and economic justice ambassador and climate justice activist. He blogs on his personal capacity. Insights presented in this article are not legal advice neither should they be construed as such.
Twitter @barrister_gutu
FB page: Human rights and the law with M.O Gutu