I have always been among a largely silent majority who have not routinely joined the bandwagon of people who blame the Government, whether red or yellow, for the unacceptably high level of criminal conduct in T&T.
It is true that political behaviour, both in and out of office, can contribute both passively and actively to and condone the commission of a wide variety of offences and stymie the conditions for successful prosecution and punishment.
But to say that any political administration, as a cohesive unit, would deliberately set out to aid and abet criminality would be to oversimplify a rather complex set of relationships and circumstances some experts continue to state and restate in the public space. It also makes absolutely no political sense. We have been firing governments since 1986 for non-performance on such issues. So, don't try to sell me squat about "Kamla" or "Rowley" causing crime.
We should also now be relatively well acquainted with the analyses that disassemble the numerous causative, socio-psychological factors that feed into a predisposition to break the law. There is an endless bibliography of submissions by experts such as Prof Ramesh Deosaran, Derek Chadee and my former journalistic colleague, Renee Cummings and others that have prescribed sound analytical approaches that steer us away from the facile, linear contentions of the political partisans and others.
The advice is all there on reforming the major institutional elements to achieve the objective of not only "fighting" crime, but of addressing the fundamentals associated with stemming the resort to criminal behaviour, creating a legislative environment to prevent and punish crime, addressing the criminal justice system, reforming education, creating stronger communities and that long, long list with which we are all by now aware.
All of that is clear. All of that is understood. And neither the reds nor the yellows can be held exclusively accountable for bringing us to the state in which we currently find ourselves. It does not work like that, whatever the politicians tell you from the platform.
This happens to be one of those things in life in which we all find ourselves, to varying degrees, as culpable as the other. It is not as simple as "de PNM" or "de UNC." However, there is scope for breaking the issues down into their discrete elements and to start calling people to account for what they have been signed to achieve.
Today, I choose to focus on just one key institution and a single category of violent crime–the police service and homicide.
We all know that in T&T, you stand a much better chance of getting away with murder than having an only moderately complex issue addressed by your banker, for instance.
Any police commissioner publicly aspiring to move a murder detection rate from under 20 per cent to 30 per cent has committed a fireable offence in my view. This is unacceptable in a small island state through which billions have been spent over the years to improve the physical and institutional means by which the police are expected to perform at a much higher standard.
It is of no comfort to anyone, and a somewhat deceptive exercise, to hear a police press conference announce a reduction in the incidence of different categories of crime as an achievement. Yes, there is a crime prevention feature to the work of the police, but where the current anxiety lies is in the apparent inability to detect and successfully prosecute murderers. Let us hear about that.
The serious police vehicle crisis of some years ago has been addressed (I said, more or less), there is a stated commitment and prioritising of resources to address serious crime, as correctly defined by the service itself, and there is an abundance of hardware and software available including cameras, intelligence and communications systems.
So, how can it be that the aspiration to improve detection rates for murder is only 30 per cent? Then, of that 30 per cent, what is the expectation regarding successful prosecution–a process heavily reliant on professional policing? What we effectively have here is endemic impunity.
I am in Jamaica at the moment where, as far as murder goes, the detection rate currently stands at around 45 per cent and the conviction rate is around seven per cent! I have been told that our conviction rate is pretty much near there. At one time, we referred to the Jamaicanisation of violent crime in T&T. Readers, we are already there.
This says a lot about this key, though not solitary, institution charged with turning the situation around for us in T&T, the police.
Political grand-charge will not get us out of this one. Yes, the process for appointment of a police commissioner is needlessly cumbersome, but that is not, in my view, a significant factor in the poor verdict we can deliver on the ability of the police service as a whole to address the taking of life.
The facile resort to arming citizens, the tragically misinformed call to impose the death penalty and mindless endorsement of the (Rodrigo) Duterte resort to deadly vigilante justice, are not options a mature, thinking society should contemplate. This is a call for competent policing.
Today, we should all join in calling out all ranks of the police service on their inability to deal with the single most serious slur on our status as a civilised nation.You, dear acting Commissioner, Superintendent, Sergeant, Corporal, Private, SRP. On behalf of a population under siege, I today call you out on this.