Devon Dick
Last week, a female deacon testified at a church meeting that she was sorry she watched TV a couple nights before, because of the gruesomeness of the murders of our children. She said she was so overwhelmed by the serious situation that she could not pray. There are many persons who are overwhelmed, frightened, distressed and depressed by what is happening regarding murders in general and, in particular, as it relates to our children. However, the response from the police and Government to shield us from this onslaught seems simplistic.
In The Gleaner of October 1, 'Police present seven reasons for 60 days', Mark Shields, deputy commissioner of police, testified before the Joint Select Committee of Parliament examining six new crime bills - a response to the worsening situation. The police presented, not seven reasons for 60 days but, seven cases. The intention is that someone could be held for 60 days without a charge being laid against the person.
Arguments
I am not even debating the need for the 60 days, but rather, I am distressed at the arguments used to support the 60 days. In fact, I do not understand what the relationship is between the cases presented and the 60 days. The case studies were apparently a response to Mark Golding, People's National Party (PNP) senator, asking for data to substantiate the reasoning behind the bills.
The first two cases demonstrate persons who were charged and committed murders two years later. These cases have nothing to do with holding someone for 60 days without a charge. These persons were all charged. Apparently, the issue has to do with bail. If it were an issue of charge, then the police would have to call for the power to hold persons for two years without a charge!
A Gleaner editorial 'Elementary, Mr Shields, elementary' (February 14, 2008) berated Shields for missing investigative opportunities. A couple months ago, at a University of Technology Crime Forum, data showed that the rate of solving murders has been declining for the last three years.
It is amazing that the public is not interested in the rate of solving murders and also whether the right strategies are being used. Taxpayers paid for a report that examined how the police, led by Shields, conducted the investigation into the Bob Woolmer death. Ian Forte, former judge, submitted the report a year ago and still the report is state secret. Meanwhile, Shields stated he would not have done anything different.
I am afraid that the new bills might just be simplistic solutions to serious situations. Under the PNP administration, led by P.J. Patterson, I criticised the move to import British police. The only politician who was brave enough to express disappointment was the Honourable Derrick Smith, who, during his tenure as minister of national security, said, "We expected more from British cops (Nov 11, 2007)." I said we needed to use the best British policing practices but not their police.
Chastised governments
Fortunately, RJR's Monday newscast claimed that Professor Ramesh Deosaran, independent Trinidadian senator and internationally renowned scholar in criminology, chastised governments, regionally, for looking outside the region for personnel to fight crime.
Many persons called for Smith's dismissal as minister of national security because the murder rate was climbing and Colonel Trevor MacMillan was installed. If we are to judge both persons' performance on average murder rate, then Smith's would show that he was a better minister of security, but there are no calls for the resignation of MacMillan.
We are fiddling with this serious crime situation and the best we are doing is offering simplistic Shields.
Rev Devon Dick is pastor of Boulevard Baptist Church and author of 'Rebellion to Riot: the Church in Nation Building' Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.
