Aubrey Stewart | The Firearms Act: What should be kept, and what should be fixed?

For almost four years, Jamaica has lived with one of the toughest firearm laws in its history. Now, members of the legal profession, led by the Jamaica Bar Association (JAMBAR) and the Advocates’ Association of Jamaica, are protesting aspects of the very law that was passed to confront one of the country’s greatest problems: illegal guns.

The Firearms (Prohibition, Restriction and Regulation) Act came into effect in November 2022, but JAMBAR says its concerns are not new. The association argues that concerns were raised before and after the law was passed, particularly about mandatory minimum sentences and the restrictions placed on judicial discretion. What has changed is that Jamaica has now had several years to see how the law operates in actual cases.

The timing of the protest creates an interesting quandary. It comes at a time when the country has experienced substantial reductions in murders and other violent crimes. The Government has pointed to its wider crime-fighting measures, including stronger firearm legislation, in discussing those reductions. JAMBAR has challenged the Government to provide evidence that the act itself has contributed to the decline in murders.

That is a fair question. More importantly, it is a question that can be examined empirically.

CASE FOR JUDICIAL DISCRETION

JAMBAR’s central argument is that strong punishment should not eliminate the ability of a judge to judge.

At the heart of its concerns are mandatory minimum sentences and the extent to which they restrict judges from considering the individual circumstances of a case. Concerns have also been raised about the treatment of imitation firearms, incentives for early guilty pleas, and the possibility that more cases will proceed to trial, placing additional pressure on the court system.

A strong justice system must respond firmly to serious wrongdoing, but fairness also requires proportionality. Not every firearm offence is committed under the same circumstances, even when the offences fall under the same legislation.

There is, however, another question that must form part of the discussion: What if parts of Jamaica’s tougher approach to illegal firearms are actually producing measurable results and general deterrence at all levels of society?

WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE TELL US?

As part of an Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) working paper, I, along with colleagues at the Caribbean Policy Research Institute (CAPRI), have been studying the effects of firearm and anti-gang legislation in Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago. In Jamaica, our analysis examines how changes in firearm laws have been associated with crime, arrests, and firearm recoveries.

Jamaica also strengthened its firearm legislation in 2017. This provides an earlier policy change that allows us to examine whether the patterns observed after 2022 are entirely new or part of a longer story.

The analysis uses two approaches. One examines changes immediately before and after the legislation. The other compares police divisions that historically experienced higher levels of violent crime with divisions that experienced lower levels before and after each policy change.

The second approach asks: Did the places historically most affected by violent crime experience different changes after Jamaica strengthened its firearm laws?

The 2017 results provide an important starting point. Following those amendments, firearm recoveries increased by approximately 29 per cent in historically high-crime divisions relative to lower-crime divisions. However, there was no statistically significant reduction in murders or shootings. The clearest measurable change following the 2017 amendments was, therefore, in firearm recovery rather than violent crime.

The 2022 results tell a different story.

When the legislation was introduced in 2022, arrests for gun offences increased by approximately 30 per cent while firearm recoveries increased by approximately 34 per cent. Handgun recoveries increased by approximately 54 per cent. Firearm recoveries relative to arrests increased by approximately 58 per cent while recoveries relative to shootings increased by approximately 77 per cent. These results were statistically significant.

There was a measurable change in firearm enforcement following the legislation. More arrests were being made for firearm offences, and more guns were being recovered. The comparison between historically high-crime and lower-crime divisions adds another important dimension. Following the 2022 legislation, firearm recoveries increased by approximately 36 per cent in historically high-crime divisions relative to lower-crime divisions. Although substantial, this estimate was not statistically significant and should, therefore, be interpreted cautiously.

The results for violent crime were more pronounced. Shootings declined by approximately 25 per cent in historically high-crime divisions relative to lower-crime divisions, and that result was statistically significant.

Murders also declined by approximately 17 per cent. That result was statistically significant, but it requires greater caution because the analysis identified differences in murder trends between the two groups even before the 2022 legislation was introduced. This makes it more difficult to confidently separate the effect of the legislation from changes that may already have been under way. The evidence for shootings is, therefore, stronger.

Overall, the 2017 and 2022 results tell different but connected stories. In 2017, the clearest change was increased firearm recovery. In 2022, stronger enforcement was accompanied by significant reductions in shootings in historically high-crime divisions.

None of this proves that the Firearms Act alone caused Jamaica’s reduction in violent crime. Crime does not rise or fall because of one law. Policing strategies, intelligence operations, gang disruptions, social interventions, states of public emergency, zones of special operations, and changes within criminal networks can all influence crime at the same time.

But the evidence also makes it difficult to dismiss the possibility that stronger firearm legislation has mattered.

WHAT EXACTLY SHOULD BE FIXED?

The answer does not have to be a choice between JAMBAR and the Government. One solution is to distinguish more clearly between real and imitation firearms. Where an imitation firearm is used to threaten, intimidate, or facilitate a crime, the law should remain firm. But where persons have already received mandatory sentences for possession of imitation firearms that were not used in the commission of another crime, the Government could consider a legal mechanism allowing those sentences to be reviewed, and, where appropriate, reduced.

Any amendment could also be accompanied by another national firearms amnesty. Jamaicans could be given a defined period to surrender illegal firearms through authorised channels before the law continues to be fully enforced.

This would not require abandoning the progress made under the Firearms Act. Rather, it would recognise JAMBAR’s concerns while preserving the law’s central objective of keeping illegal guns out of Jamaican communities.

The evidence suggests that stronger firearm laws have been accompanied by meaningful changes in enforcement and violent crime. The answer, therefore, may not be to make the law simply tougher or softer but smarter, firm on illegal guns, fair in exceptional circumstances, and guided by evidence.

Aubrey Stewart, PhD, is a public policy researcher and consultant. Send feedback to aubreymstewartiv@gmail.com and astew055@fiu.edu.