Public Insecurity: When Justice Wavers Between Leniency and Deterrence

On September 25, 2025, the Intermediate Court sentenced 38-year-old Ranjeet Ram to three years in prison for the fatal assault on 58-year-old security guard Chanand Sepaul. The incident occurred on February 21, 2014, at Fond-du-Sac, when Ram trespassed on the victim's workplace to steal diesel and batteries. The leniency of the sentence sparked public outcry, raising questions about whether the laws are sufficiently deterrent and what flaws exist in the system. Former magistrate Me Noren Seeburn and lawyer Me Taij Dabycharun provide their insights.

Me Noren Seeburn emphasizes that the court must also serve as a deterrent when imposing a sentence. He discusses various factors considered by judges, including social context and both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. According to him, the court is currently the last line of defense for citizens amid rising public insecurity.

He points out that factors such as the defendant's cooperation with police, plea, criminal record, age, and the nature of the crime are typically presented during the trial. In Ram's case, he had no prior convictions for similar offenses. The maximum sentence for this type of crime is 20 years, but the court decides based on the facts and law.

Seeburn comments on the long delay between the crime and sentencing, which can lead to a more lenient punishment. He believes that while our laws are sufficiently deterrent, the application of sentences varies significantly based on individual circumstances. He insists that the goal of punishment is also to deter others from committing similar acts.

Reflecting on Ram's case, Seeburn questions whether a three-year sentence is adequate given the severity of the crime, arguing that the fatal blow to the victim's head should have been more heavily weighed in the judgment.

Me Taij Dabycharun argues that while our laws may appear deterrent in theory, practical issues weaken their impact, such as variations in sentencing for similar cases. He advocates for reforms, including the establishment of sentencing guidelines to ensure consistency in judgments.

Before reaching a verdict, judges must analyze various legal and factual elements, including evidence, witness credibility, and the specifics of the crime. Dabycharun highlights that mitigating factors, such as the defendant acting under emotional distress or being a first-time offender, can lead to more lenient sentences. Conversely, the presence of aggravating factors, such as cruelty or use of weapons, can increase the severity of the punishment.

Finally, he points out that delays in judicial procedures can result in lighter sentences, as the accused may have already suffered moral and psychological harm from prolonged legal battles.

Overall, both lawyers agree that while the Mauritian legal framework is theoretically deterrent, practical shortcomings need to be addressed. Dabycharun suggests reforms such as improving judicial procedures, enhancing public communication about judicial decisions, and implementing effective rehabilitation programs to reduce recidivism.

In the specific case of Ranjeet Ram, the three-year sentence for the fatal assault continues to raise concerns among the public, as evidenced by numerous critical comments from online users questioning the adequacy of the punishment.