FIGHTING CRIME is and has always been serious business requiring serious thought and determined action.
We believe that, in general, much effort has been made by the Government and leadership of the security forces to put in place a programme of action to counter the almost intractable forms of crime. But clearly problems remain and will, for a long time.
The admission last Monday by Commissioner of Police Francis Forbes that aspects of the anti-crime plan implemented by the Government in December had failed to meet its objectives and target of a 20 per cent reduction in murders, was a wake-up call and sobering reminder of the need to be continuously vigilant.
Since then, Commissioner Forbes has come in for some flak from critics for having "gone public" with his concerns before sharing them in a meeting with Dr. Peter Phillips, the Minister of National Security, or with the members of the National Security Council.
So the Prime Minister summoned the members of the Council to a meeting on Friday and the upshot? Messrs. Forbes and Phillips are to meet again tomorrow (Monday) to review the anti-crime initiative. This review is being done against the background of what Jamaica House described in a statement on Friday as "shifts in the classification and location of criminal activity".
We would have thought that periodic reviews were the norm and need not be triggered by public admissions by the Commissioner of failure in some aspects of the anti-crime fight.
Curiously also, the Jamaica House statement said the Prime Minister had "instructed" that a registry be compiled of all projects being undertaken by agencies involved in the Government's social intervention programme, outlining specific projects, targeted communites and numbers of persons to be assisted and time frame for implementation. Again we would have thought this was basic to proper monitoring of the programme from day one. How else would success or failure be
determined?
More importantly it seems, Friday's carefully-worded statement seemed aimed more at defusing the alarm/concerns triggered by the Commissioner's statement than addressing any real issue of public concern. There was a repeated insistence that there had been success in suppressing the drug trade, dismantling gangs and forcing criminals to relocate. Perhaps not many people would be so sanguine, given their daily experiences.
The Jamaica House statement said too that the Prime Minister had urged the security forces to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to crime and lawlessness in all areas. This is another meaningless statement. Surely Mr. Patterson was not going to tell them to go easy on crime given current statistics. So was Friday's high-profile meeting all that necessary?
