Stephen Vasciannie(T)he existential reality of social blight ...
gives rhyme and reason for the phenomenon of young Jamaican men, between ages 16 and 24, opting for crime as the appropriate mode of what turns out to be unsafe conduct into manhood"- Professor Nettleford, in Headley, The Jamaican Crime Scene: A Perspective (1994)
IN THE fight against crime and violence, there will always be those who say we should go for the jugular. Going for the jugular in this context means that we should identify the source of the crime problem and send a spear right through that source. The thinking behind this approach is that there is little point in concentrating on the symptoms of a problem: if underlying causes are not addressed then the hydra-headed monster will constantly re-emerge.
There is virtue in going for the jugular with respect to crime. My fear, however, is that many of the proponents of this approach continue to display bewildering short-sightedness in the identification of the jugular vein - in fact, the short-sightedness is so pronounced it calls into question whether our serious problem of crime and violence has prompted wilful blindness on the part of some of our social scientists.
The jugular vein of the current crime wave is not the drug trade just so. Rather, the jugular may be found in the underlying economic, social and political conditions that promote the mentality that drug trafficking is one possible route out of poverty and deprivation. It is not an accident that the areas with the highest levels of crime and violence coincide with communities showing the highest degree of social privation; nor is it an accident that most of the people who are enlisted into drug trafficking activities as foot-soldiers are among the most alienated from acceptable norms of social conduct.
The truth is that for many in Jamaica's inner cities crime is now a major means of social advancement, and that, at the same time, the law-abiding citizen is left playing by the rules upon a dung hill of squalor, pain and suffering. In these circumstances, going for the jugular should highlight the need for the State to take concerted action to alleviate poverty, and, more specifically, to intensify efforts at inner-city renewal. This should be the highest priority of the Government at this time, and it should be undertaken on a scale which emphasises the significance of poverty alleviation in reducing crime and social alienation -- action, not lip-service, is required.
Of course, none of this is to suggest that drug traffickers should be ignored; and it cannot fairly be argued that poverty should be allowed as a legal defence in criminal matters. The point is just that, in terms of emphasis, the jugular is more clearly located in the fight against poverty, deprivation, alienation and oppression than in other areas.
Some writers and speakers have recently maintained that in the present period Jamaicans should be prepared to surrender a number of basic rights and freedoms as a means of ensuring greater security from crime and violence. At least two of these persons would no doubt be willing to concede that poverty and oppression are fundamental causes of our perpetual crime problem, but still, they are moved by the need for the State to take immediate action to address criminality, and they believe immediate action now implies the suppression of human rights.
NO EVIDENCE
At the risk of repeating myself, I find it disappointing that those who are calling for human rights suppression have failed to establish precisely how this course of action will actually help in promoting the fight against criminals. In one case, the argument seems extraordinarily shallow -- it is simply a shout to the effect that we should be prepared to give up basic rights if this will help resolve the crisis. In other words, it is a conditional argument, not based on evidence, but rather constructed on the desperate hope that by attacking human rights we will somehow be attacking crime.
This desperate shout ignores Jamaica's history and social realities. As to history, there is little or no evidence that previous attempts at restricting human rights, through the declaration of States of Emergency, or through the Suppression of Crimes Act, have done much to curtail the crime rate. Indeed, given that the long-term trend with respect to crime and violence in Jamaica is inexorably upward, those who would give away our rights need to explain why previous attempts at crime-fighting through the suppression of rights did not work, and why they expect this strategy to work in the future. That, I believe, is the least that a social scientist should be expected to explain.
Moreover, as to social realities, we may assume that the suppression of human rights would involve giving more powers to the police as the arm of the State most directly involved in tackling crime and violence. Again, we have to assume this because, with one exception, those who would give away our rights remain mysteriously silent as to which rights they would want to give away.
Should more powers be given to the police? Significantly, Commissioner Forbes has not indicated that he needs more powers to achieve State objectives; and, at the same time, former Commissioner MacMillan has argued strongly against the suppression of human rights as a crime-fighting device. So, if the experts in policing do not see the need for this approach, what is it that prompts at least two social scientists of standing to proffer the contrary view? What do they know that the rest of us do not?
DETENTION WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION,
To be sure, if the police are given greater powers -- including the power of indefinite detention without justification, as one social scientist has recommended -- this could lead to a short-term reduction in crime. This is so because the police could possibly "round up the usual suspects," as well as hundreds of other young men whose only crime may be that they are young and poor. But this approach would only generate further resentment between the people and the police, and would possibly be a formula for a greater level of crime in the future.
Draconian measures, applied in a discriminatory manner against people in deprived communities, will only lead to greater alienation, and will not reduce crime. This used to be axiomatic among local social scientists. Today, do the social scientists calling for rights suppression know something that we do not know?
One thing that we all know is that if the police are given carte blanche to combat crime, this will be a licence for abuse. And, another thing we know is that if human rights are suppressed, the top-level drug dealers will not be affected, especially if they have political connections.
Finally, we know that Vice-Chancellor Nettleford is correct. It is time to take action to address "social blight," not to give away rights that represent human dignity and hope. At best, all this talk about rights suppression is unsubstantiated rhetoric that reflects desperation rather than rationality.
Stephen Vasciannie is Professor of International Law at the University of the West Indies.
