There appears to be no intention, at least for now, to issue a general amnesty. In fact, official circles seem uncomfortable whenever the subject of either a general or special amnesty is raised.
اضافة اعلان
One evening, a serving minister reproached me for repeatedly discussing the issue of a general amnesty. He argued that most inmates are imprisoned on drug-related charges and asked whether I wanted those convicted of drug offenses to be released.
I firmly replied that I did not, adding that such cases could be excluded while expanding the scope of a general amnesty to cover other categories.
I then asked him for specific figures: How many inmates are currently in prison? How many are serving sentences for drug-related offenses? What is the capacity of the prisons, and can they accommodate the current population? What will the situation look like in two years?
These questions are important so that calls for a general amnesty are not portrayed as demands to release dangerous criminals, thereby stigmatizing anyone who advocates for amnesty as though they were defending a cocaine trafficking network.
In any case, several interconnected issues require transparency. Official authorities should issue a comprehensive statement detailing the number of male and female prisoners, the classification of offenses, and other relevant statistics.
The recurring response that “most prisoners are incarcerated for drug offenses” is insufficient. Prison conditions themselves are another matter entirely, given overcrowding, excessive pressure on facilities, and the circumstances faced by many inmates whose cases have nothing to do with drugs, particularly those involving rent debts and financial maintenance obligations.
There is also an aspect that receives little attention: public rights cases. This area offers room for flexibility. If reconciliation has been reached between the parties involved especially in homicide cases where the victim’s family has waived personal claims why should there not be some form of sentence reduction? The same question applies to other public rights cases.
Raising this issue does not mean defending wrongdoing, crime, or offenses against the lives of Jordanians and others residing in Jordan.
What needs to be said is that remaining silent in the face of demands for a general amnesty is no longer sufficient. Some people have begun to believe that there is deliberate resistance to the idea because a particular political current, represented in Parliament, has repeatedly called for such an amnesty.
According to this view, official Amman is reluctant to respond so as not to appear to be yielding to that political group. Whether this perception is correct or not, it is not a logical way to approach the issue.
The demand for amnesty is far broader and more complex than the agenda of any single political faction.
Despite suggestions circulating about the possible return of imprisonment for financial offenses, reality points in a different direction. The economic conditions many people face may soon require new arrangements, even in matters related to rent and alimony.
Tens of thousands of people are unable to meet these obligations. Imprisoning them often leads to the collapse of their households. Once incarcerated, they cannot work, while the state must bear the cost of their imprisonment. In many cases, what the state spends on an inmate over the course of a year could cover overdue rent or unpaid maintenance.
This reality calls for a reassessment of such cases and the search for solutions that guarantee the rights of claimants while allowing individuals to remain productive and capable of paying at least part of what they owe, rather than worsening the problem through incarceration.
One of the best reforms Jordan has introduced in this area is the system of alternative sanctions, which deserves considerable recognition. At the same time, however, we continue to call for transparency. Let officials provide a detailed explanation of the number of convicted individuals, the nature of their offenses, the percentage of women prisoners, and the types of sentences being served.
Only then can society reach a common understanding, instead of repeatedly being told that most inmates are imprisoned for drug-related crimes offenses for which few would dare advocate amnesty, given the spread of this phenomenon and the crimes associated with it.
We want a comprehensive and detailed official statement, rather than the familiar response that “no country in the world issues a general amnesty every two years.”
Easing the burdens on people does not diminish the authority of the state; it strengthens it.
