I asked a question of some of my associates in my last article on the same subject and they are composing their replies. They should be ready for the next issue of Amandala and, I will include the 4th of this series.
We live in trying economic times and our government is doing its best to keep the ship of state a float in a “sea of troubles”. But, there is another challenge that they have to face which may be of more concern to the citizenry. It is the large and ever growing incidence of crime in general, and crimes of violence in particular. Faced with this situation, responsible governments gather their brainpower resources to assess the situation, study the problem and all aspects of it, receive and evaluate advice and recommendations, make decisions and take action. This is what the past government should have done. If they did, they have failed miserably.
Dealing with crime is now the job of the present government. The people have a right to expect that it will do so with expedition and efficacy. We are a patient and long suffering people but, there is a limit to our patience. It will not do for the police to publish reports which show that there is a reduction in crime. We have to accept the fact that these figures are based on crime that is reported or discovered. They are not to blame for the people’s loss of confidence in the efficacy of the law enforcement agency and the criminal justice system. But, this is the reality. Crime in Belize is like the iceberg. Except for the number of murders, only a small portion can be seen on the surface. What is below the surface is far greater. For example, not all rape cases are reported; less of muggings and even less of thefts.
What our authorities have to understand is that as the levels of crime increase, the citizenry become more tolerant of the lesser crimes like muggings and theft, which encourages the criminals to become more daring and greedy.
There was a time in Belize when crime did not pay. The police and the justice system would deal with it, and members of the “force” would still have time to interact socially and otherwise with their counterparts in the civil service and the business world. There were Police football and cricket teams taking part in the annual competitions, and they were much to be reckoned with. Police officers, as well as the rank and file, were boxers and track athletes. The officers belonged to social clubs like Newtown and CBA and they had the respect and cooperation of the citizenry. Is there a good reason why these conditions should not resume?
The police say that most violent crimes are drug related, which means that the problem is the drug trade. If they know who the drug dealers are, it would seem that the high command of the Ministry of the Police could negotiate with these individuals with a view to their exercising better control of their minions. You may well ask why don’t the police read the riot act to these dealers or arrest them and put them in jail. They would have done so if they could. This is what the movies tell is the great Mr. Dewey and his “untouchables” are supposed to have done in America to the gang leaders in the twenties. The truth is you shouldn’t believe everything you see in the movies. The truth is that J. Edgar Hoover was a master propagandist who knew how to make use of gullible Hollywood producers.
The people are not so much concerned with the means that are used to bring down the crime rate as they are about positive results. While we wait for the Crime Commission to do its work, it would help to see government start to take some initiatives against crime based on the experience and judgment of those who have been successful in dealing with crime in Belize and elsewhere.
In the main, there are two ways to deal with crime: Preventing them from happening and punishing offenders so as to discourage them from repeating their particular offence and setting an example to others who might be tempted to do the like. I did say in my article “Crime and Punishment II” that the cost of prevention was prohibitive, and I have been taken to task by another Amandala columnist, who pointed out that the cost of not preventing crime is greater. I am inclined to agree. The alternative is, of course, punishing wrong doers. But first you have to catch them, take them to court and gain a conviction and incarcerate them, which cost may be more than prohibitive.
The penalty for crime being known in advance should be a deterrent, in general, to first offenders. But, in determining the appropriate punishment for crime, the lawmaker has to take into account that it is in human nature for individuals to believe that they can break the law and get away with it and, enjoy whatever benefits the infraction produces. The law maker should also take into account when determining a penalty, that most of the individuals who are apprehended will not be first offenders, only that they have been apprehended for the first time. That is why it is important that for certain classes of offences, the penalty should be so severe as to deter the would be wrong doer. Therefore, the most appropriate punishment for crime should be that which will produce the greatest deterrence, having regard to the principle that the punishment should fit the crime.
I will conclude this article by pointing out that in the present circumstances where crime in Belize has reached the level where many of our citizens are on the verge of despair that successful governments seem to have been impotent in curbing crime, there is the opportunity for the present government to gain the undying gratitude of the populace, if they have the capacity and the will to take whatever action is necessary with courage and confidence.
A caring and compassionate government would begin by taking some initiatives in the right direction in order for the populace to feel that it has their best interest at heart. I would like to suggest that a good way to start would be to make a law to protect senior citizens from muggers. (I think a senior citizen may be defined as someone above the age of 65 years.) This law should have a penalty which would deter offenders. The present all-purpose law does not. We shouldn’t worry if muggers will be unable to determine whether a potential victim qualifies. In fact, if the penalty is what I think it should be, it would be poetic if the perpetrator made a mistake.