Justice vs. Mercy: Rethinking Penalties in a Compassionate Sri Lanka

The recent sentencing of former Civil Aviation Minister Piyankara Jayaratne to seven years of rigorous imprisonment for misusing Rs. 320,000 in state funds brings a fundamental tension in Sri Lankan governance to light. While the misuse of public money by an official is undeniably a serious breach of trust, the severity of a mandatory seven-year sentence for a sum that translates to a few hundred US dollars forces a broader question: Is a penal system inherited from British colonial rule aligned with the values of a democratic socialist republic rooted in compassion? 

The Case for Strict Accountability

Advocates for retaining rigid anti-corruption laws point to the pervasive damage that political patronage and corruption have caused Sri Lanka. The country’s recent economic hardships were exacerbated by systemic governance failures, making strict accountability vital.

• Deterrence: Uncompromising penalties send an unmistakable signal to public officials that no amount of public misdirection, regardless of scale, will be tolerated.
• Public Trust: Consistent, unyielding enforcement demonstrates that the rule of law applies equally to high-ranking politicians and ordinary citizens alike.

The Argument for Judicial Discretion and Mercy

Conversely, critics argue that mandatory minimum sentences and inflexible penal frameworks strip judges of the ability to weigh proportionality, intent, and mitigation—principles central to jurisprudence in many Western democracies.

• Proportionality: In systems with flexible sentencing, judges can tailor penalties to fit both the severity of the offense and the amount involved. A seven-year prison term for a relatively small sum raises concerns about whether the punishment fits the crime.
• Judicial Discretion: Empowering the judiciary with sentencing flexibility allows judges to consider factors such as prior conduct, restitution, and individual circumstances rather than imposing blanket sentences mandated by legacy statutes.
• Therapeutic and Restorative Justice: A modern legal system grounded in compassion prioritizes restitution, rehabilitation, and proportional community service over purely retributive imprisonment.

Revisiting Colonial Legislation

Much of Sri Lanka’s criminal law framework traces back to nineteenth-century British colonial statutes designed primarily to maintain control and enforce state authority, rather than foster social harmony. In a democratic socialist society that values human dignity, re-evaluating whether these strict statutory mandates reflect modern values is a timely debate.

A judicial system that balances deterrence with flexibility can uphold accountability while ensuring that justice remains tempered by mercy. Let us start that discussion. 


Viresh Fernando is a lawyer in Toronto, Canada, and can be contacted at viresh@vireshlaw.com.  The author is a  product of Sri Lanka’s universal free education, universal free healthcare, subsidized food and subsidized transportation social welfare system.