Peter Espeut | Zero tolerance? Really?

In my column of August 23, 2019 (‘Total tolerance for lawbreaking’), I concluded that the actions of the then head of the Public Safety and Traffic Enforcement Branch (PSTEB), Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Bishop Dr Gary Welsh, OD, JP, in ‘pardoning’ 140 traffic offenders, were hard evidence that the police were not taking a zero-tolerance approach to crime, and particularly not to traffic offences.

The response of the police commissioner was swift! Within days, ACP Welsh was transferred elsewhere, and the zero-tolerance policy of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) was affirmed.

Is it possible that when ACP Bishop Dr Gary Welsh, OD, JP, was appointed head of PSTEB, he was not advised of the force’s policy? If not, the present commissioner of police is to blame and should be censured, and ACP Welsh exonerated. If Bishop Welsh had been so advised, and yet went off on a frolic of his own, he should be dismissed from the JCF with dishonour. That would be a zero-tolerance approach.

But somehow, I don’t think either the JCF or the Government is committed to a zero-tolerance approach to traffic offences, crime, or corruption.

As a motorist in city Kingston and across the country, I observe that about half (or maybe more) of the motorcyclists I encounter are without crash helmets. Surely, members of the JCF driving in their cars and riding their motorcycles observe the same thing. It seems to me that if the police applied their zero-tolerance policy to crash helmets alone, that phenomenon would disappear from Jamaican roads in a few weeks. And in the process, they would discover dozens of other offences, such as driving without a licence, insurance coverage, or certificates of fitness. It seems to be a no-brainer.

This is not a matter just of traffic breaches. Traffic accidents cause injuries, which, in addition to maiming victims (affecting their family income), affect insurance companies (that have to pay out), cause all insurance premiums to be raised on us motorists, and increase the burden on accident and emergency units in public hospitals (requiring more taxes to pay for treatment). Surely, the failure of the JCF to implement its zero-tolerance policy is tantamount to negligence and dereliction of duty.

I seem to recall grand statements from political platforms that various governments would take a zero-tolerance approach to dealing with corruption. And yet when corrupt conduct is observed, people are allowed to resign and leave with their ill-gotten gains: no prosecutions at Petrojam and the other scandal-ridden government entities, nor of politicians or public officers who hand in their declarations late, or not at all.

If any government was really committed to zero tolerance against corruption, would nepotism, undeclared conflicts of interest, and breaches of procurement guidelines still not be offences in law? If aspirants to political office or political party leadership were really committed to zero tolerance against corruption, would they not shout aloud: “Elect me, and I will make political corruption a criminal offence and will prosecute all offenders”? Instead, it seems they wish only to have their turn feeding from the trough of corruption, on the scarce benefits and political spoils.

I do not see how people with sensitive consciences can support any of the two major political parties on offer in Jamaica. Personally, I have to hold my nose when I vote.

As we seem to be again transitioning from the old guard to Young Turks, can we hold the political players to a higher standard? Can we really have zero ­tolerance against traffic offences, crime, and political corruption?

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and dean of studies at St Michael’s Theological College. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.