THE EDITOR, Sir:
We live in a country that is fast losing its capacity to protect its citizens from pervasive crime. While we agree that domestic violence is one of the hardest to effectively manage because of its spur-of-the-moment characteristic, every effort must be made by the police to intervene post-haste when they are alerted.
The emotional nightmare emanating from the triple tragedy in Trelawny - where a father slew his two daughters and then hanged himself - could possibly have been avoided, if the story related by the family members is correct.
How can law-enforcement/crime-management officers respond to an SOS call the way they were alleged to have done to a terrified spouse, after she miraculously escaped with her life? What of communication between police personnel? How difficult was it for the person receiving the call to make the necessary contacts?
But isn't there a Crime Stop advertisement that implores persons to call in and report suspicious activities? I remember that famous line, 'You don't have to give your name.' The rationale I deduce here is that their mandate is to intervene before suspicious activities materialise into criminal activities.
POOR RESPONSE of police
So on whose authority does an officer tells a complainant that he/she has to visit the station to make a report before it can be acted upon?
We are forced to broad-brush the police in emotionally charged situations like these, but based on my little knowledge, "wait a bit" and "giving the runaround' to someone reporting a crime is not a part of the operations. Are there officers autonomous of the rules of good policing?
Our country can ill afford to be dispensing scarce resources to these persons and we need to really replace them with persons who want to be part of the crime-management process. Or, sadly, we will continue to have many more horrifying stories like this one.
PAT WILLIAMS BIGNALL