State weakness and 'informerphobia' (Part 2)

Dr Hume Johnson and Dr Joseph Soeters, Contributor

The following is Part 2 of an in-depth article looking at the culture of silence and its impact on crime fighting efforts.

HOMICIDES IN Jamaica do not toss up a queue of witnesses. In fact, extra-legal activities go largely unreported, and as a consequence, the rate of unsolved crime, particularly homicides, remains artificially high. Indeed, the frequency with which perceived informers are killed in Jamaica is a troubling indicator that this context has become what could be called a 'hostile witness environment'.

A hostile witness environment is one in which the murder of witness-informers is not uncommon. The threat posed by the criminal is, therefore, considered real, not exaggerated or imagined. At the same time, a compromised judicial system elevates this threat to conditions of palpable fear on two fronts. One, there is a significant level of trepidation regarding the ability of the State to protect citizens who agree to become witnesses. Two, a pervasive distrust exists regarding police corruption, and in this case, the corrupt use of information given by 'informers'. Even so, I am sufficiently convinced, based on the evidence from recent research on 'informerphobia', that Jamaican citizens would be more inclined and willing to disclose information to police authorities than not (to disclose information), as long as certain conditions (of safety and anonymity) were met.

For example, to fully come to grips with the real extent of informerphobia in Jamaica and, crucially, seek to understand what circumstances would lead some citizens to supply information to the authorities even in the face of such potentially brutal conse-quences, I recently posted the following questions on the social networking Internet site, Facebook:

"If you witnessed a crime or became aware of criminal activity in your community, how willing would you be to give information to the police?" and "What would cause you to be more willing to disclose information?".

The following are a random selection of responses from a cross section of Jamaican citizens living in Jamaica and overseas. I refer to the respondents here as FB1 and FB2, etc.

FB1 (Female): I would be willing to disclose information if there is no way for anyone to pinpoint me as the source, if it is a cop I know I can trust, and probably if I am being provided with protection services.

FB2 (Male): Generally, I would not be more inclined to be cooperative until and unless I see radical transformation in the [Jamaican] police force itself. In the United States where I now live, I don't have the same reflexive distrust of the police. Generally, I find the police [in the US] responsive to calls for help, unlike the Jamaican police who will often not respond to calls/complaints at all (even in situations where violence is threatened or occurring).

FB3 (Female): If they (citizens) refuse to give information, it may be that they have a lack of trust in the police. They are not unsupportive of laws or right from wrong. However, the police, who are to serve and protect, are destroying them [informers].

FB4 (Male): Yes, but definitely depends on how 'tight' the community is. If it was a community at a level where each neighbour cares for each neighbour's children, and there is common support for a positive neighbourhood ideal.

FB5 (Female): It depends on where I live. In Jamaica - NO WAY - our system is so broken from the top down, I would not trust the police to keep me safe or guarantee anonymity. Moreover, the people who are in place to serve and protect us [refers to the police] will trade your life for a bribe in a hot minute! When you think you might become a statistic, because you assisted, it makes you unwilling. In America, possibly, because there is the possibility that you might be protected, but at home [Jamaica], it's a flat-out NO WAY!

These responses provide important insights into the dilemma Jamaica faces with regard to information disclosure. It is noteworthy that a majority of respondents - when asked what would make them resist informerphobia and give information to the cops, echoed conditions of anonymity.

Informerphobia seems to be less a consequence of the fear of criminals and more, perceived ineffectiveness of the police to protect them or the information in short, as well as falling confidence in the functioning of state institutions, manifested in distrust of the police.

Yet, in my face-to-face interviews with senior members of the Jamaican police services, a slightly different view on the challenges to information dis-closure is expressed. According to one police inspector, "Some people use it [distrust of the police] to their benefit and deliberately don't give information. Oftentimes, people say that they give the police information and the police go back and tell the criminals. We see this as a fallacy. We don't believe it is true. People can block their identification and call on their mobile phones, and every Jamaican has a police friend or knows someone in the police that they can trust."

It is worth recalling here that the informerphobia culture within the inner city is carried out within the context of hostile relationships between residents and the police. In this sense, non-cooporation with state agents, such as the police, can be seen as part of the poor's resistance to the status quo. The anti-informer culture is, after all, an anti-social culture. At the same time, apathy towards the criminal justice system can itself be seen as a mode of engagement and a symbol of the poor's deep-seated discontent with the performance of the State, in this case, its policing services. Indeed, one Facebook respondent remarked that "distrust of the Jamaican police is a healthy response, given their palpable record of systemic corruption and incompetence" (June, 11, 2009).

Getting involved in the criminal justice system as an informer is no doubt a complex phenomenon. Peoples' lives are put at great risk when they consent to assist the police. Weakened systems for witness protection and a compromised justice system are thus problematic. The police ought to be sensitive to the reality that by virtue of being in witness-protection programmes, some citizens have, in effect, made themselves informers and, therefore, must assume the shortcomings which derive from this (change of residence; identity change; risk of harm, etc).

We recognise that citizen informers willingly participate in the justice system and carry out what is generally expected as a citizen to assist in the enforcement of law and order, even in the context of fatal consequences. They agree to become jurors when asked; if they have evidence, they give it to the police; and, they turn up at court to give evidence. By virtue of these voluntary practices, we argue that informerphobia can be lessened. In the same breath, when an informer gets killed, it doesn't help; it deepens informerphobia.

A review of how case files are handled and the functioning of the witness-protection programme thus seems imperative so as to encourage greater information sharing through confidence in the State's capacity to protect witnesses.

Combating informerphobia: Enabling legislation required

By way of conclusion, I argue that given the extraordinary nature of crime in Jamaica and the difficulties the State faces in extracting information, it is vital to create enabling legislation and policies which support infor-mation sharing and discourages informerphobia. This already has precedent elsewhere. The Italian government, in its war against mafia extortionists enabled legislation which criminalises individuals known to have infor-mation on extortion practices but refuse to report it (Johnson & Soeters, 2008). To some extent, Jamaica also already has in law those who are 'compellable witnesses' and who are not. Under the Money Laundering legislation, banks are legally obliged to disclose information to the police regarding substantial deposits and suspicious financial transactions. The Jamaican Government must, therefore, move quickly to undertake the following legislative moves, which many commentators agree will go a far way in unlocking a silent Jamaican citizenry.

The Government ought to enforce the whistleblower legis-lation, continue its amendments to the Evidence Act, and enact legislation to give police freedom to investigate extortion without having to rely on a complainant. At present, prosecuting extortion in Jamaica requires a complainant, whereas in Italy, for example, prosecutions take place without a plaintiff. Already, there are calls for the use of the 'misprision of felony' legislative provision, which would make it a criminal offence to not report a criminal act. Whereas this facility is on the books, it is not being used by the police in Jamaica.

There are also calls from security experts for legislation in Jamaica, which renders it illegal for an individual to lie to the police (after he/she has identified himself/herself). (See Crooks, 2009, The Sunday Gleaner, January 11).

The infrastructure to try crime must also be improved in Jamaica so information can be forthcoming and facilitated. There are currently calls by security experts and criminal analysts for the tech-nology in Jamaican courtrooms to be improved, as this would massively improve the capabilities of the justice system by way of facilitating swifter trials and sentences. (See Crooks 2009, The Sunday Gleaner, January 11). Improved technology in court-rooms (testimony via satellite, etc) would facilitate information sharing without the fear and threat of violence on the citizen exercising his duty.

My premise is that the ultimate outcome of an investigation and intelligence gathering must be prosecution. It follows that the information gathered must be good, that is, 'actionable'. Prosecution turns on evidence. Whereas no information would be considered useless by the police, it is important that information is linked to police action and successful prosecution. It is in this area that the Jamaican police experience failure. We posit that the ultimate measure of citizen confidence in the police rests on three important variables: 1) successful prosecution, 2) increasing the clear-up rate for crimes, and 3) lowering the overall crime rate.

On these three scores, Jamaica has not performed at levels considered acceptable, applying minimum standards. This speaks volumes about the quality of the investigation and the evidence that is being brought into the court system.

Whereas informerphobia and the pervasive culture of silence continue to thwart the possibility of achieving success in the preceding variables, it is their achievement which may, paradoxically, lessen informerphobia.

Dr Hume Johnson is a political scientist and broadcast journalist. Dr Joseph Soeters is a military sociologist and teaches at the Netherlands Defence Academy. Write to them at humejohnson@gmail.com.