Innovative justice needed

In spite of decades of unbridled criminality and a world-record per capita murder rate, it took an apparent attempt at secession, a mini-rebellion and an outright assault on civil society for Jamaica to take the fight to the criminal entities that have held us hostage mercilessly. Obviously, a limited state of emergency was needed to restore law and order quickly to the troubled areas.

I understand the arguments proffered by the security forces for extending the limited state of emergency. I also understand the relief experienced when our murder rate fell precipitously when joint military/police operations descended on criminal hot spots, rounded up and detained dozens for processing. However, as already postulated, the reduction in criminal activities may well have been due to increased police/military presence on the streets - a situation that does not require extraordinary emergency powers.

Since the situation that necessitated that limited state of emergency was neutralised, since the suspension of civil rights brings the real potential for human-rights violations and since emergency measures cannot be used for crime fighting - extending the state of emergency would be outside the constitutional framework and represent our abject failure to find a workable solution to our crime situation. We need more than 'emergency measures policing' to control crime.

One contributory factor is the way that we deal with some lawbreakers. I have the greatest respect for our judiciary; however, something about it concerns me greatly. There is a general acceptance of the way that things are always done, even though the practice produces the same unacceptable results (increasing violence, crime and a multiplicity of Jamaican communities operating under laws alien to ours).

Unnecessary burden

Some convicts are being sent to prison (because that's the way that things are always done) when they could do something reparative for their victim(s) and continue supporting themselves and their family. They become an unnecessary burden on the State, leave their families wanting, are sometimes assaulted behind bars and transformed into hardened criminals because of their incarceration.

I know a fellow who was found guilty of wounding someone because he retaliated after being attacked twice by his assailant. He was fined $50,000, but was unable to earn that money within the time specified, so he was non-compliant with the court order, arrested and incarcerated. Now, this skilled mason/carpenter is languishing behind bars. His 'victim' (previous assailant) is not going to receive any reparation, the convict's girlfriend has to find $1,000 weekly to provide care packages for him (because our prisons lack many basic necessities), and you and I must pay for guarding, housing and feeding him.

Obviously, the crime was not serious enough to warrant a mandatory custodial (prison) sentence, otherwise he would not have been given the alternative of paying $50,000. If a man of means had committed the very same crime, he would be free today. Everything about that kind of justice reeks, yet it is the common practice because that is the way that things are always done.

Think outside the box

Such a man could be made to report to the nearest police station daily. He could be made to apologise and pay reparations to his victim. He could undergo counselling and made to give talks to at-risk youths on the pitfalls of violent resolutions to conflicts. He could continue supporting himself and his family and generally be a productive citizen who did not depend on the State for anything.

I urge the judiciary to think outside the box (be innovative). The old concept of simply 'locking up' people has proven ineffective.

Garth A. Rattray is a medical doctor with a family practice. Feedback may be sent to garthrattray@gmail.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.