Public attention is being riveted on crime. Here of late, no day passes when there is no ghoulish representation of the impact a small number of predators are making on their communities and this country’s reputation. One day, the news concerns the killing of a businessman. On another, a foreign investor is killed by murderous intruders. And, yet again on another occasion, a man is killed with a pickaxe. These stories and others make the news. As they are reported, more and more people take alarm, fearing that they and their loved ones will be caught up in the crime wave.
While people are absolutely right to be concerned about their well-being, we counsel and caution that they not succumb to panic and frenzy, whipped up- in part at least – by media representations of mayhem and wanton destruction. Now is the time for our leaders in government and in civil society to work to calm some of the fears people have about the incidence and impact of crime.
It is said that ‘justice delayed is justice denied.’ Here of late with public anger at the boiling point, more and more Bahamians are demanding that stronger action be taken to curb and contain the depredations of bandits who would – if left to their own devices – destroy this country. Many people are convinced that the law is often too soft on criminals.
What is interesting about much of the opinion which is being voiced concerning the supposed inadequacy of the criminal justice system is that much of it is vicious and ill-informed. In one particularly bad example of extreme poor taste and stupidity were the mouthings of a radio talk show host which suggest that magistrates and other officers of the court were responsible for some of the troubles in this country by being ‘too soft’ on criminals.
In other instances, a number of church leaders have chimed in with their draconian and extreme interpretations of holy scripture. While interesting in terms of what they say about what Bahamians are thinking and how they express themselves, much of these opinions are not germane to the policy relevant questions concerning what the government should do about the incidence of crime and the fear it foments.
For our part, we are convinced that the way forward calls on the government to maintain a measure of calm, work to build capacity in the judiciary and uphold the rule of law.
When, for example, reference is made to the number of criticisms concerning proposals for the beefing up of the Bail Act, the government should be ever mindful of the rights of the accused, their presumed innocence and the responsibility of the state to see to it that justice is done.
If it is conceded that justice delayed is justice denied, it follows that people accused of any crime should be brought to justice without undue delay. What this means in practice is often subject to intense debate and discussion.
When – for example – a person accused of a crime is given bail, released into the community and is accused of committing other offences, he is still to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by those prosecuting the matter. And, too, he still has a right to a defence.
Much today is being made of a police inspired assertion that up to ninety per cent of crimes are committed by a minority of criminals and that many of these offences are committed by people on bail. While we do not wish to debate this contention one way or the other, we find it more than passing strange that with a regime which boasts that policing is being intelligence driven, there is so little success in actually making the purported connection between these criminals and the spate of crime for which they are allegedly responsible.
A more innocent explanation is perhaps that the police force is under-resourced, existing assets under-utilized and that it has not been able to penetrate some of the more successful criminal enterprises in this country.
Similarly, there is reason to believe that the Attorney General’s office is understaffed and that some of the attorneys who are working in that department are stretched and stressed to the maximum degree.
In addition to this fact of administrative incapacity in the Attorney General’s office are the multiplicity of failings in the court system which have occasioned complaint after complaint, year in and year out. Apparently convinced that they can all wait for ‘change to come next year,’ successive regimes have promised to do something as beefing up capacity. To date, the promises remain. Judges and their teams are still waiting.
The point is that in this reckoning day, it is now clear as day that more must be done to build judicial capacity in The Bahamas. In the absence of such purposeful action, things will continue to go from bad to worse.
Fortunately, though, while crime is a serious problem in The Bahamas, the government still has an opportunity to improve the functioning of the judiciary.
However, if Prime Minister Christie and his team are to succeed, they must convince the Bahamian people that building capacity requires that it be paid for, thus the need for requisite revenues.
Editorial, The Bahama Journal
