Peter Espeut | The end cannot justify the means

I wore black on Tuesday.

I wore black because I support the police, and am appalled at how their reputation is being damaged by the appearance that they are using excessive force in the execution of their duties.

No Jamaican that desires social order can fail to support institutions which ensure that society’s laws are complied with. Being against the police is to be against law and order; and in support of anarchy and chaos. And so every decent Jamaican must support an effective and consistent constabulary dedicated to uphold law and order. And the reason we support the police is that we support law and order.

The Jamaican Constitution contains a whole chapter (number three) outlining the fundamental rights and freedoms of all Jamaicans which the police are sworn to guarantee. The first of these listed is

“the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in the execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which the person has been convicted”.

I support the police in its work to guarantee all Jamaicans this, the most basic of human rights. Personally I do not support the death penalty (which this section also legitimises), but I will debate that issue on another day.

The point the Constitution makes is that the right to life is only lost when a person is CONVICTED of a capital crime. Being SUSPECTED of a crime cannot cancel a Jamaican’s fundamental right to life.

Our fundamental law emphasizes the seriousness with which the government must recognize these rights [Chapter 3 Section 2 (b)]:

“Parliament shall pass no law and no organ of the State shall take any action which abrogates, abridges or infringes those rights”.

Neither parliament nor police nor health sector has the right to deprive me or you or anyone of the right to life. This is bigger than them, and we cannot uphold them if they do so.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Do criminals have human rights? All Jamaicans – including criminals – are humans and have rights. It cannot be otherwise. Criminals have CERTAIN of their rights taken away, but NOT ALL their rights!

A criminal is a person CONVICTED of a criminal offence, not just someone SUSPECTED of committing a crime. Persons sentenced to death lose the right to life; persons sentenced to prison lose the right to walk about freely; persons sentenced to asset forfeiture lose the right to that personal private property. Persons suspected of committing crimes – whether politicians, policemen, or public – have the right to due process: to be brought before a court of law in reasonable time to answer the charges laid against them. It cannot be otherwise; unless we live in an unjust society.

As the police defend “the right to life, liberty and security” of my person and your person, they cannot deprive me or you or anyone of our guaranteed constitutional rights.

This is what makes the job of the police so difficult: they must uphold the law without breaking the law. The police are constrained by the very laws they are seeking to uphold. It is a fundamental principle of ethics that the end does not justify the means. We must all work to achieve good “ends”, but if we use evil “means” to do so then we have crossed a line. We are guilty of evil.

Of course, wicked people are not so constrained; since they set out to break the law, they will use any means at their disposal to do so. Evil people are not concerned about respecting human rights, whether the right to property or the right to life.

NO BETTER

If the police disregard the human rights of persons they suspect of committing crimes – even murder – then they are no better than the persons they pursue. Even if a policeman sees a person shoot and kill another person, Jamaican law does not give him the right to be judge, jury and executioner. The law requires him to use only as much force as is necessary to apprehend the person, and to bring them before a court of law. A policeman breaks the law he is sworn to uphold if he uses more force than necessary – excessive force – to apprehend someone,.

Policemen and women who are issued firearms must first be trained how to use them. Not every policeman is a marksman – a sharpshooter – but every armed police officer must be able to hit what they aim at. And it is not legitimate for them always to aim for the head or heart.

If it is possible to apprehend without killing, then that is the legal course of action. If the policeman has no confidence that he can collect convincing evidence, or has no confidence in the ability of the government prosecutors, he may be tempted to take the law into his own hands; but that would be lawbreaking, and a serious indictment against the country’s justice system.

So last Tuesday I wore black because I support the police in their difficult job of defending our right to life, liberty and security of person. But with 108 suspects killed in the first 180 days of 2025 – mostly in “targeted operations” – I am convinced that some policemen are trying to bring the constabulary into disrepute by using excessive force.

Body-worn cameras might rubbish allegations of police extrajudicial killings, but it might also help convict police gunmen. It is the height of inefficiency or bad faith to buy cameras without the capacity to store and archive the footage.

It is important to bring down Jamaica’s murder rate – one of the highest in the world – especially in an election year; but not at any cost. You should not buy electoral victory with blood. The police must show themselves better than gangland gunmen by staying within the law.

Don’t families and neighbours of police victims vote?

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com