For the year 2010, it was estimated that there were 483 cases of murder, 554 cases of wounding/shooting, 89 cases of kidnapping, 563 cases of rape, 4,250 cases of robbery and 4, 299 cases of burglaries. The data is astounding given the size of these two countries and the size of the population.
Both the past as well as the present Government have indicated what they have termed a "zero" tolerance approach to crime. In the case of the previous administration, the attempt to stop crime was referred to as operation Anaconda (although it is difficult to see the link between a big reptile and crime-fighting solutions). With the current Government, it is still difficult to gauge their strategy in their attempt to fight crime. Perhaps it had to do with the firing of the chairman of the Police Service Commission and the hiring of what appears to be a "tough talking" new commissioner who seems to want the "head" of the Commissioner of Police if things get worse. What is clear, though, in a discussion with the head of the police academy, there seems to be, if all goes well, a modern approach to policing. The approach to train, re-train and further re-train augers well for the police force. The intent, to involve academia in the training of police officers, is also a good initiative. In other words, someone has the sense to understand that fighting crime does not call for more police officers but rather there should be an emphasis on smarter policing. Yet, it should be recalled that policies to curb crime do not reside with the police alone.
Indeed, there are many dimensions to fighting crime in any country. The first step is the legislative agenda that sets the pace for crime fighting. The second dimension involves policing. The third dimension is the focus on the criminal justice system. While the final dimension, at least for some, resides with the prison. In the case of the police service, for example, there is a multitude of laws defining the roles and responsibilities of this sector.
They include: • 4/2007 The Visiting Forces Bill, 2007 • 5/2007 The Visiting Police Forces Bill, 2007 • 8/2007 The Police Service Amendment Bill • 6/2005 The Police Complaints Authority Bil • 5/2005 The Police Service Bill • 4/2002 The Police Complaints Authority Bill • 3/2002 The Police Service Bill • 10/2001 The Special reserve Police Amendment Bill
It is evident, though, that irrespective of the number of pieces of legislation introduced, that crime continued to escalate. In response to this increase, during the 1960s to 1980s governments across the Caribbean attempted to combat the rising levels of crime by increasing the number of police officers, police vehicles and with the issuance of a further slew of legislation.
The primary focus was on deterrence. It should be recalled that there are three dimensions to deterrence, namely: (a) It implies a legal theory of crime control; (b) The concept is based on the belief that general deterrence stems from the perceived threat or fear of the inherent elements of punishment; (c) General deterrence explicitly defined criminal action as a function of the expected costs and rewards associated with such behaviour in comparison to alternate lines of action.
In order to deter then, governments hired, bought cars and spoke....In the courts it was no different. Hundreds of cases were brought to the courts every day but the challenge was one of capacity. Few and overworked legal aid lawyers, long waiting lines and courts that were overburdened were just few of the problems. The cases that were heard resulted in incarceration where they "locked the box and threw away the keys." More recently, though, it has been suggested that reforms are to take place at all levels-at the police, in the courts as well as in the prisons. There is continuing emphasis also on community policing. While the "talk" of reform goes on, there seems to be, however, one major "missing" link-people. Increasingly, in schools, what is being highlighted is "bullying" and in a recent case the battering of a schoolgirl by another. But these kinds of incidents, it should be recalled, are not new. Many years ago, I remember the fights my brothers and sisters and myself had as children at home as well as in school. Children are not angels. What worked then was deterrence-a licking from the school master-or a whipping by the parents and in some cases, the neighbours. In my mind, though, what remains is not the pain of the "licks" but rather the "shame" or the stigma that went with it. But I have been advised that the teacher no longer can punish the child-the child has rights.
While it is true that punishment via beating is brutal-yet there should be some mechanism to prevent bullying and fighting. What society has done is to emasculate the teacher and reduce them to mere puppets in the sight of the community and the children in their school. With no one to fear-the violence becomes uncontrollable...and it is not something that a visiting social worker can curb. Once upon a time, the schoolteacher was respected in the community. People went to teachers for advice, for counselling, for guidance and more importantly to read or write letters. They commanded respect and they received respect. What was unheard of then, was parents coming to the school and bullying teachers. It is time, then, that in the effort to curb crime, the emphasis should be a focus on the community. Long ago communities solved their own problems. The community, in a sense, purged its own. Perhaps, in the effort to reform the local government authorities, then, the emphasis should be placed on rejuvenating the community. Community leaders and chiefs should be once more asked to determine the agenda of their community and they should be asked to work hand in hand with the authorities to put in place solutions to curb crime.