Last week, I accosted the opposition leader about an astounding thing he had recently said in the course of a broadcast statement on violent crime in the territory.
It is this: “Under the governor, the elected government will never feel the necessary pressures to fund the police because the issue of crime is always the responsibility of those in charge.” The clear implication was that, over the years, the representatives of the people had (insofar as police capability was related to incidence of crime) deliberately chosen to let the people suffer from increasing crime by withholding clearly necessary funds, because the Constitution gives the governor, and not a minister, special responsibility for the police force! I told the leader that his statement could not be true. In fact, if true, it would be such a damning indictment of those holding political office that it was quite surprising that none of his colleagues had as yet hastened to publicly disassociate himself or herself from it. He insisted that he stood by his comment as absolutely true; he was only stating what he had heard with his own ears — including from himself, of course — time and again in the secret budget discussions. I must admit that he convinced me. And no one has come forward to deny it.
The most charitable view of the matter is that ministers (of all parties) were not intentional in harming the public interest in this manner, but were merely single-mindedly pursuing their own agendas to get as much for their own portfolios as possible. The governor is not directly represented in these discussions, so his or her area of the budget loses out. And indeed, over the years it has been very, very difficult to get funding for capital works for police and courts. The police headquarters were occupied on a “temporary” basis in the early 1990s. At least, in the Cayman Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands and Anguilla the deputy governor represents the governor’s group “at the table.”
Other implications
Accepting that part of the opposition leader’s contention as valid, I still contest other implications which follow. One is that the whole or main explanation for the level of crime is the adequacy of funding of the police force. If the premier had responsibility for the police force, the speaker thinks, crime would come down because the police would have more resources. Really? Another implication is that since the subjects in the ministers’ portfolios are much better funded they are successfully managed in comparison with the police. Is this the case now and historically? I doubt that one has to look very far to answer that question. Electricity? Derelict vehicles? Water and Sewerage? Perhaps Finance?
Let us cast our eyes around the independent countries of the Caribbean where there is no governor in the equation, so supposedly the political directorate lacks that excuse for withholding funds from their police forces. The huge and growing scale of violent crime is heartrending wherever one turns, from Jamaica to the Bahamas to St. Vincent to Trinidad and Tobago to Guyana. Jamaica in 2015 saw a murder rate of 45 per 100,000. We see in all these countries a pattern of the opposition laying the blame on the government for the crime rate. At the next election, the government changes. Crime escalates further. It becomes a big plank in the former ruling party’s next election drive. And the beat goes on.
What about another simplistic contention, that arming the police is a large part of the “solution?” It might surprise the opposition leader to know that in the neighbouring United States VI not only are police armed, but so are customs officers, immigration officers and other “peace officers.” Guns abound, as do cameras. In addition to the local police, who are also equipped with an array of technology, there are layers of armed federal government personnel and courts. Yet, if our murder rate were to approach theirs we would have had some 15 to 20 murders last year. He might also be surprised to learn that Jamaican police are armed, plus there is an armed army for special operations, but one result is outcry about the number of persons the police shoot dead in questionable circumstances. (Look at the US.) So the evidence — the evidence — does not show that police guns give the answer. Nor do longer prison sentences seem to reduce gun violence.
‘Simplistic solutions’
Politicians and pundits have ever been seduced into putting forward simplistic solutions to complex, wicked problems. It is especially so with crime: We like to speak as if it were like a snake with one or a few heads and if you chop enough of those off, presto, your problem is solved. The evidence suggests to the contrary that crime, including violent crime, is deeply embedded in our societies and is more like a cancer. You can ask the scientists fighting cancer how complicated is the phenomenon; how the proteins evolve or how they hide and use the body’s defences against it; and how, yes, destroying cancer altogether often means great stress or even death to the cancer patient. (Crime, similarly, can be brought under greater control with drastic measures — Cuba had low crime — but quality of life, human rights and the economy could suffer.) So a certain minimum of crime is a price we pay for a certain quality of life.
Cockfighting
Let me introduce here, as illustration, what may seem a red herring. A popular radio sports show has in recent weeks mentioned the “sport” of cockfighting, which, unlike horse racing, is supposedly illegal, unlicensed and immoral in its cruelty. Yet, according to the reliable grapevine, it is a thriving entertainment in the VI with hundreds or thousands of followers, with fighting roosters even being brought into and taken out of the territory at will and hundreds of thousands of dollars changing hands in bets. Completely “underground.” How? Why? Is it because the police come under the governor and they are not armed? The same grapevine reports the involvement of powerful local figures in this supposed illegal activity. Cancer.
Reducing crime
Can crime be reduced significantly? Of course it can. I think the way to reducing crime must begin, though, with honesty about the tremendous complexity of this social disease, and that leaders should resist reducing it to simple formulas that make good “sound bites” but are deceptive. We do need a well-resourced and trained police force, yes. We need efficient courts and good court facilities. But even more, we need sound government policies that support crime reduction over time: policies and laws that greatly strengthen healthy family life, for example. The connection between the level of crime and other social ills, and the availability of good, affordable child care in this day and age, should not be such a mystery. But just as important are active community and neighbourhood involvement. Neighbourhood action, where the people of an area come together and carry out a plan of action determined to control their community, has been proven to reduce crime in many areas. So we need to put heads together: government and police and people. We need to act on the best information. We need to have patience for the long haul. And then we also need to pray.
{fcomment}