Crime bills, indeed!

Bert Samuels, Contributor

In 1974, Jamaicans witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of senseless gun murders. The crime rate was fuelled by the obvious fact that there were too many guns in the hands of young, hopeless, unemployed men who were easily hired, or prepared to leave their victims dead as part of the collateral damage in a new flood of robberies.

The government of the day, under extreme pressure to deal with the situation, instituted legislation which gave birth to a court dedicated solely to the trial of gun-related cases. The court was to try matters in record time, with trials commencing within days of the arrest of the suspect. To attain speedy trials, save and except for murder cases, preliminary enquiries and trial by jury were thrown through the window. The public and the press were excluded from hearings. Upon conviction, be it for the mere possession of an illegal firearm or the commission of an offence with its use, the judges could impose only one sentence - that of 'indefinite detention' - whereupon convicts were carted off to prison cells painted red.

In summary, drastic measures were put in place to deal with the drastic proliferation of illegal weapons. The dreaded Gun Court was established, for the most part, during the reign of the Suppression of Crimes Act. Prior to its ultimate repeal, many of our rights as citizens were suspended. The police were granted awesome powers of detention and searches without warrant, as they carried out their law-enforcement activities.

There is sufficient empirical evidence which suggests that this approach did not suppress crime, but rather, within a short period of time, gun crimes tripled! The sacrifice a nation made in giving up many of its citizens' rights under the seemingly well-intentioned move to reduce the crime rate has left its legacy whereby Jamaica is now referred to as the murder capital of the world. Simultaneously, we also have built up a reputation as a country with one of the highest per capita extrajudicial killings worldwide.

Agana Barrett was a young man who, while on his way to work one morning, was detained with a number of other young men, and carted off to the Constant Spring lock-up. He was placed in an overcrowded cell and, with little or no ventilation, became disoriented and drank his own urine before he, along with others, suffocated to death. We, the taxpayers, paid out millions to his estate.

This crime against a young citizen of the country, by those who pledged to serve and protect him, was not simply the consequence of an overcrowded cell. It was as a result of the use, by the police, of a bad law which permitted the unwarranted detention of a poor and defenceless young man. It was a state-endorsed measure, sold to us as necessary, which we were short-sighted enough to accept as a valid crime-fighting measure. However, it compromised the rights of a young man, kept in degrading and inhumane conditions, and whose shouts for help went unheeded.

APPALLING

Laws which permitted the atrocity at Constant Spring alienate the community, create enmity between police and citizens, and breed crime rather than suppress it. As the memory of Agana Barrett fades and we turn a blind eye to the counterproductive measures enacted in the Gun Court Act, we have again embarked on new measures to fight the crime monster. The call to delay the right of accused persons to apply for bail, and to take away the discretion of judges to grant bail, is appalling. We are about to be denied, should the Government have its way, the presumption of innocence and the duty to take the accused before a judge to consider and deliberate on his application for bail. These hallowed constitutional rights are now under siege.

Parliamentarians, not our judges, will be determining, 1) the appropriate sentence to be given in Gun Court matters, 2) when we can apply for bail, and 3) how long the police can detain us before we can see a judge.

The police are required by Section 15 (3) of the Constitution to take us before the court "without delay" - that is what is required in plain language. Once we are taken before a court, the judge, and not Parliament, should determine our liberty thereafter. Our judges are being told when to consider bail, and where they eventually grant bail, the prosecution will have the right to appeal that decision! Of course, the person who has been granted bail may be required to remain in jail pending the appeal against his bail offer.

Judges bearing blame

Our judges are now, in a subtle and sinister way, bearing part of the blame for the crime problem. They are granting bail without good reason, and their light sentences are showing a lack of sensitivity to the need to put criminals away for a long time.

For the record, it is my experience that our judges are fully cognisant of the need to punish where the evidence directs them, and acquit when the citizen is so entitled.

We are going to need more judges, more jailhouses and larger prisons. Where are the surveillance cameras? How much have we allocated to maintain a modern forensic laboratory equipped to undertake scientific tests, if currently it is unable to carry out a simple ballistic test on a firearm in under two months?

Yes, these are the crime bills, indeed. Guaranteed to do just that - increase crime. Truly, a people who forget their history are bound to repeat it.

Feedback may be sent to bert.samuels@gmail.com or letters@gleanerjm.com.