Settle crime debate with national polls

"Crime out of control!" blared the headlines when the murder count passed 600 in 1992. And when it topped the previous 'near civil war' 1980 record of 889 in 1996. And when it went over 1,000 in 1997. And when it shot up by over 50 per cent from 975 in 2003 to 1,471 in 2004. And when it hit a new record of 1,674 in 2005. And when it hit a new record of 1,680 in 2009, which will likely be broken this year. Any bets on when we will surpass 2,000?

Over 13,000 Jamaicans have been murdered over the past decade. Our inability to stop killing each other makes you wonder if Jamaican democracy is proving to be a failure. What's the point of those democratic trappings we so like to boast about - a free press, the rule of law, multiparty elections - if we can't even keep our children safe? Why do Jamaicans keep electing politicians - from both the Jamaica Labour Party and the People's National Party - under whom the murder rate just goes up and up?

Here is an excerpt from the July 3, 2008 Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica press release 'Three Strikes, or the 2,000 Mark?':

"Up to 1971, our homicide rate was, overall, lower than that of the USA's (it is now over 10 times as great) ... the nation's safety has been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Our politicians should hang their heads in shame."

So should we tribalistic voters who keep mindlessly voting the same old gangs into office. When will we have the guts and sense to send even one non-comrade/Labourite to Gordon House who will not be beholden to the current murderous status quo?

Depressing state

It's even more depressing that we, as a nation, can't even agree on measures to stop the slaughter, as our lobby groups and media commentators attack virtually every crime-fighting plan put forward.

Security Minister Dwight Nelson recently outlined a raft of proposed crime bills, including the Bail Act, the Offences Against the Persons Act, the Constabulary Force Interim Provisions for Arrests and Detention Act, the Amendment to the Parole Act, the Evidence Act, the Amendment to the Firearm Act, the Immigration and Citizenship Legislation, the Continued strengthening of the Proceeds of Crime Act, the Development of the DNA Evidence Bill, the Amendment to the Fingerprints Act, the Amendment to the PSRA Act, Legislation for electronic tagging and monitoring, Legislation enabling the merger of the Police Service Commission and the Police Oversight Authority and amendment to the JCF Act.

Here is the stance of The Gleaner's 'The Gavel' (April 26, 2010):

"(The Prime Minister) still seems to think that the anti-crime bills before Parliament are somewhat of a silver bullet and that their implementation will be to the benefit of law enforcement.

"But 'The Gavel' would be devastated if the parliamentary Opposition backs away from its position that the anti-crime bills are unjust. Those anti-crime bills, we believe, are nothing but a ripe area for criminologists looking at legislative mistakes."

No alternatives

No doubt, some aspects of the Government's proposals may bear closer scrutiny. Yet constructive criticism must offer alternative ideas, and 'The Gavel' put forward no concrete proposals of its own. It merely spouted platitudes about "degarrisonising communities" and "taking the profit, fame and style out of criminality" and crushing "criminal networks and organised crime".

Of course, these wonderful concepts can only become reality when both political parties agree to see the light, an epiphany that is nowhere in sight. Whatever happened to Bruce Golding's 2006 challenge to Portia Simpson-Miller, and her acceptance, for both prime minister and Opposition leader to walk hand in hand through inner-city garrisons?

We can't unthinkingly swallow everything the Government puts on our plate. But the current 'against everything all the time' tone of the crime debate is depressing the hell out of an already frightened Jamaican public.

There are two views on the streets about why the tough anti-crime measures the public is crying out for are not being implemented. One is that agenda-seeking talking heads and elitist lobby groups, with little popular backing but strong media support, keep preventing our governments from carrying out the responsible will of the people. The other is that politicians are using these commentators and human rights groups as convenient fig leaves for their nefarious behaviour. To again quote 'Three Strikes, or the 2,000 Mark?' :

"Why have all our prime ministers and security ministers over the past two decades been so unwilling to take the necessary measures to cut crime? Those of us on the outside can only speculate. But many Jamaicans are convinced that many criminals have political connections, and putting them behind bars would open up skeleton closets on both sides of the fence. Hence the weak governmental resolve to address the issues."

Settling the debate

How can we settle the debate? Well, one of our media houses, or the PSOJ, or, if needs be, the government itself, could commission a respected islandwide poll of major anti-crime measures being proposed. A credible testing of the national pulse would show what the public itself - as opposed to a few loud voices - would like to see done about crime. Let us see if the Jamaican people favour, or not, such measures as a DNA database, a biometric National ID, mandatory prison terms for gun possession and violent crimes, longer sentences for repeat offenders and tougher bail terms.

Based on vox pops, it's likely that most of these measures would garner strong majority support. Then our self-styled 'Chief Servant' could say to the naysayers, "We know these measures have the people's support, and I was elected to carry out the people's will!" Or if the political pussyfooting continued, the public could march on Gordon House and say, "You are a hypocrite, Mr Golding, for not implementing what the people clearly want!"

A friend says this would possibly be a dangerous precedent that could entrench populism. But we see polls on proposed bills all the time in the United States of America and Britain. There is a huge difference between saying 'We are proposing responsible measures that have worked elsewhere and which polls show have the backing of the people' and saying 'We are pushing through irresponsible knee-jerk populist measures that have had disastrous results elsewhere!'

The other crime-fighting blockage we constantly hear about is 'legislative backlog'. Well, if the bills are piled up in Parliament, why can't Parliament meet more often? If Mother of Parliaments Westminster can meet every day, surely our legislature can meet say three times a week. And if we have a shortage of law-drafting expertise, well hire some from other Commonwealth countries with similar legal systems like ours.

How long shall they kill our people, while we stand aside and look?

Feedback may be sent to changkob@hotmail.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.