Reductions in crime more than 'bad boys trembling'

Bernard Headley, Guest Columnist

A journalist for whom I have tremendous respect, The Gleaner's Byron Buckley, posed to me a few days ago three rather thought-filled questions, for which he said he needed my responses. He was researching and writing on, he emailed, the widely discussed matter of crime (particularly violent) having drama-tically declined since the security forces went into west Kingston in search of Tivoli Gardens strongman Christopher 'Dudus' Coke.

I emailed Mr Buckley back a comprehensive, yet nuanced set of answers to what were his compre-hensive yet nuanced questions. It seems, however, limitations of space allowed inclusion of only a few scattered excerpts from my responses in Mr Buckley's piece, 'Bad boys tremble' (May 19, 2011).

Given how important I think it is that we all (not just criminology students) develop both clarity and critical understanding of this the nation's most pressing problem, I'm hoping for space here to put on record, first, Mr Buckley's incisive questions, and then my full and complete responses.

1. What, in your view, accounts for the significant reduction in crime nationally subsequent to the Tivoli incursion, although the Kingston Western Police Division had not accounted for significant levels of crime in recent years?

Reductions in crime, real and apparent, are always transitory. This is true internationally. All countries go through waves and spurts, peaks and dips, in crime. Reported incidents of crime, for just about all countries, normally alternate between going up, and then going down. What was the remarkable thing about Jamaican crime, particularly homicides, was the tendency, certainly over the last 10-20 years, for them to be constantly going up. Maybe we are now moving in (or getting back to) a direction that is more in keeping with the normal international pattern of undulating trends in numbers of crime reported: that is, normal peaks and dips.

But for even this we ought to be thankful. We need good data for explaining that which is at the core for apparently bringing down serious crime. We simply do not know this as yet, at least not with any empirical certainty. Surely, law enforcement deserves a good portion of the credit, but not by any means most and certainly not all. Because also significantly responsible for seeming reductions in crime are the efforts - the peace efforts - of civil society that have gone into community building and social innovation, all having been honed over early fruitless and agonising years, but which may only now be finally bearing fruit.

And even where law enforcement ought to be given credit, it can't be that the police have reduced crime by having done, or gone about doing, things in the same old way. The security forces are clearly going about their work more intelligently. I can certainly say so for agency higher-ups within the Jamaica Constabulary Force with whom I work. Among other things, they are learning how to cooperate and work with communities.

2. Do you believe the use of the hard-policing approach a la the military incursion and state of emergency to break the spiralling crime trend was justified? How do the police maintain and improve these gains?

I believe that the application and intelligent use of force was necessary to remove from his lair, and his stranglehold of western Kingston, Coke. But that ought not to have necessitated the killing of more than 70 people. Surely, our expensive and well-trained military could have figured a way to extricate their man without that kind of scorch-earth force. Having said that, though, the hope of redeeming urban crime garrisons lies in crafting well-conceived, well-thought-through, weed-and-seed (or 'hold and build') projects and objectives.

That's a different kind of approach from what's generally termed 'hard policing'. Sustained 'hard policing' has never worked to bring down serious crime in Jamaica; and it has been an even more dismal failure at inspiring civilian confidence in the police.

3. Should an element of the long-term anti-crime policy involve soft-policing methods such as gun amnesty and socio-economic rehabilitation programmes?

Yes, yes ... and yes. But I would never use the misleading term 'soft policing'. Intelligent policing includes strong elements of community support, and it is always infused with strong notions of fairness, justice and respect for the rights of citizens.

Bernard Headley is professor of criminology at the UWI, Mona. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.