We can't 'force' crime rate down

My job has taught me to seek solutions to problems and not just suppress symptoms. I, therefore, felt dismayed when I heard the chief servant speaking on his regular monthly interactive radio programme. I expected to hear more substantive anti-crime measures and not just the belabouring of this administration's intention to depend on the 'forces' (the police and the defence forces) to reduce crime. We've heard nothing of concrete plans to tackle the root causes of crime. We can't 'force' the crime rate down for long - we need positive social programming and practical means of self-sustenance for our less privileged.

The chief servant explained the obvious need for the state of emergency. He explained that the security forces asked for more time to gain control of crime. We can't blame them - even though the situation that triggered the need for the last state of emergency no longer existed, the security forces were given the mandate to reduce crime and, when high levels of crime exist, that's how they regain control - through force.

9-11 comparison

He further agreed that the state of emergency is not a sustainable anti-crime measure (I'm paraphrasing), but then he compared our situation to the infamous 9-11 terrorist attack in the United States of America (US) and emphasised that the state of emergency there had been extended (a strong hint that ours should have also been extended).

But the two circumstances are incomparable. Thanks to politics and gangsterism, we have an endemic crime problem. However, the US had a terrorist attack on their homeland by an international group of extremists, hell-bent on destabilising that country for socio-religious reasons.

State of emergency aside, the new police powers will exert yet more 'force' on the criminals and on some innocent citizens. However, in the same way that organisms eventually mutate to neutralise even our very best antibiotics, criminal elements will eventually adapt. Therefore, only by becoming a police state will we be able to control crime using force. No amount of 'powers' and no amount of 'force' will bring us real or long-term success.

Since the retaking of Tivoli, children and adult residents are being feted in places as far away as Negril. This gesture from the administration demonstrates that the State is sympathetic and harbours no hard feeling concerning what transpired on May 24. The treats attempt to provide some compensatory mirth and levity, but will be short-lived at best and have no sustainable component.

Anti-establishment mindset

Our vulnerable poor have already been oppressed, used and misused, by one demigod or another, all the days of their harrowing existence. They are surrounded by and immersed in aggression and violence. Negative forces of every conceivable persuasion have been impacting on their bodies and minds for generations. Additional subjugating 'powers' and 'forces' will only enhance their anti-establishment mindset and be perceived as yet more of (our) society's obstacles to their well-being and survival.

Instituting crime-fighting measures through 'force' is useful, in the short term. However, those measures are only there to safeguard the rights, freedoms and safety of decent, law-abiding citizens until social measures are implemented to prevent, and not just suppress, criminality.

If this government is serious about crime control, it must spare no effort to speedily institute sustainable instruments to empower the poor. Resolution centres and rapid justice must be put in place. There must be economic and medical assistance for the destitute. Education must be mandatory and easily accessible. We don't want to hear about more security forces and prisons without more teachers and schools.

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