Can We Trust a System That Sets Killers Free?

Bail aims to maintain and enforce the principle of innocent until proven guilty. While it attempts to do this, it does not come without its drawbacks. While it ensures that an accused person can be present for their trial while protecting their right to freedom, it can also make it possible for the accused to not only re-offend but also intimidate their accusers. 

While the government of Botswana has made efforts to address this issue through both the Bail Act and the Constitution, these measures are not fully effective and do not guarantee that offenders will not reoffend, even if they are not re-arrested by law enforcement. In 2023, the Commissioner of the Botswana Prison Services, Dorothy Mathe, stated that “individuals released on remand are usually in prison for a short period of time and are more susceptible to reoffending when released on bail.”

The problem when it comes to reoffending does not only expand to Botswana – it spreads to several countries across the globe. Studies indicate that in the UK, almost 900 sexual offences were committed by people who were on bail in the years 2020 to 2022. This not only indicates a widespread problem in Botswana, but it further indicates a failure in legal systems across the world, including the West.

I can attest that our government has attempted to constrain these issues through the Bail Act, but this can only go so far. There needs to be implementation programs and seminars held to educate repeat offenders and prospective offenders about the consequences of committing crimes while on bail. The repeat of an offense not only undermines the judicial system it completely undermines our government and the principles it attempts to uphold.

Botswana’s Bail Act attempts to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals, however, one of the major criticisms is that the Act does not impose adequate measures for bail in murder cases i.e, more stringent punitive measures for offenders. While courts are expected to take into consideration factors like the severity of the offense and the likelihood of re-offending, there have been cases where individuals accused of violent crimes were released on bail only to commit similar or worse offenses. This raises serious questions about whether public safety is being sufficiently prioritized.

By allowing individuals accused of murder to be released on bail, the Act has left many in society feeling uneasy and vulnerable. Families of victims live in fear, knowing that the person accused of taking their loved one’s life could be walking freely among them. Witnesses, who are crucial in ensuring justice is served, may hesitate to come forward, afraid of retaliation. The justice system is meant to protect both the accused and the community, yet without strong safeguards against reoffending, it risks failing those who need it most. If people lose faith in the justice system, they may stop reporting crimes altogether, leaving justice out of reach for many.

Judicial officers have the difficult task of deciding who should be granted bail, but without a clear system to assess the risk of re-offending, these decisions can feel like a gamble. Some individuals with a history of violence walk free, while others who committed minor offences remain behind bars. This inconsistency not only puts communities at risk but also shakes people’s trust in the justice system. Without a structured way to determine who poses a real danger, the system risks prioritizing legal process over public safety, leaving innocent people to live in fear while repeat offenders get another chance to harm.

The Act fails to introduce electronic monitoring or strict reporting requirements, creating a

dangerous loophole that high-risk individuals can easily exploit. Without proper oversight, someone accused of murder can walk out on bail and disappear into the community, unrestricted and unmonitored. This leaves victims and witnesses living in debilitating fear, never knowing if they might cross paths with someone who has every reason to silence them. Families who have already suffered unimaginable loss are left feeling unprotected, while the justice system expects them to trust a process that does little to shield them from further harm. In a time when technology could be used to track and enforce bail conditions, the absence of modern monitoring measures is not just an oversight, it’s a failure to prioritise public safety.

Bail is supposed to uphold justice, but what happens when it does the opposite? When those accused of murder walk free, only to re-offend – it’s not just a failure of the system, it is a betrayal of public trust. How many more victims must live in fear, how many more crimes must be committed before we admit that something is broken?

Justice is not just about the rights of the accused, it is also about the safety of those left behind. If we continue to grant freedom without accountability, we must ask ourselves, at what point does justice stop serving the people and start protecting those who would harm them?