KINGSTON, Jamaica, CMC – The Joint Select Committee reviewing the Cybercrimes Act recommends harsher penalties for offenses against a child.
“The Committee supports the recommendation that there should be harsher penalties about offenses against children and that there should be a distinction between the penalties for offenses committed against children by children and adult offenders,” said Science, Energy, Telecommunications and Transport Minister Daryl Vaz.
He said the Committee is recommending that the term of imprisonment be increased from 15 to 20 years for an adult who commits an act where the victim is a child.
Vaz told the House of Representatives, where the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Review of the Cybercrimes Act, 2015 was adopted earlier this week, that regarding computer-related fraud or forgery, it was recommended that consideration be given to the introduction of an offense or category of crime that treats with the possession, creation or reproduction of electronic copies of forged documents.
“The Committee was advised that the forgery of certain documents was considered a felony and attracted custodial sentence for a term of seven years up to life imprisonment, and other documents, if forged, are regarded as a misdemeanor and drew a penalty of imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years.
“Having been made to understand that the Forgery Act is technology-neutral and treats certain types of forged documents, the Committee recommended that the amendments be made to the Forgery Act to take into account the creation of an offense generally relating to the possession of forged documents, with the intent to defraud or deceit,” Vaz said.
He said the Committee expressed concern about the frequent sharing of images of scenes of accidents involving personal injury or death, as this could place the person depicted in the photos, their family, and others in distress.
Vaz said the Committee questioned whether the Cybercrimes Act would address sharing these images and if a provision could be inserted to address the same.
After careful consideration, the Committee noted that Section 9 (1) of the Act would address the issue. Still, the intent to harass, cause, or apprehend harm must be proven.
“The Committee also took note of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) guidelines for prosecuting cases involving malicious communication… and observed that if the intent could be proven, the person affected could be pursued in a civil lawsuit.”
The Committee has also recommended that a public education campaign be undertaken regarding the Data Protection Act 2020, which should include content preventing persons from sharing these images.
“The Committee also recommends discussion with the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding Section 9 [of the Cybercrimes Act] and how it can be used to address cases reported by citizens,” Vaz said.
and then 