By Matthew Kopka, ContributorThe following is part two of an interview conducted with criminologist and University of the West Indies lecturer Dr. Anthony Harriott by Gleaner contributor Matthew Kopka. Part one was published in The Sunday Gleaner.
Gleaner: There are those who allege that the United States (U.S.) has a lot to answer for where Jamaica's problems are concerned, in several regards. One is the country's debt burden, which an extraordinary amount of Jamaica's resources sixty-three per cent of the national budget goes to servicing. This is, of course, money that might be applied to resolving crime. The other is the introduction of illegal guns into Jamaica. How do you respond to this question of U.S. responsibility for Jamaican problems?
AH: There is no doubt that the crippling debt burden hampers our development. It limits our ability to create opportunities for the people to reduce unemployment, to increase investments in education, and to improve the social infrastructure of the country. Even our capacity to manage and control crime is weakened, as evidenced by our under-resourced security forces, the inability to reduce the overload of the courts, the overcrowding of prisons, inadequate rehabilitation programmes, etc. Moreover, as we are not able to bring structured and planned development of the order needed, people find their own solutions. This explains the large informal economic sector, which in turn creates problems of disorder and various opportunities of crime.
THE ISSUE OF GUNS
With respect to the issue of guns, the U.S. has contributed, but I believe that we must take primary responsibility. In my opinion, as an issue in our bilateral relations, this problem has a similar structure to that of illegal drugs. As in the case of illegal drugs there are supplier countries and consumer countries. We are a supplier country and we are held accountable, and as a responsible party we are expected to play our part in restricting the flow of drugs to the U.S. We dedicate considerable resources to fulfilling this responsibility some would argue to the neglect of our violence problem. For a long while, for example, we had dedicated more security resources to detecting drugs going out of the country than guns and other contraband that were entering Jamaica. This is obviously the unfair logic of power. But if we apply the principle of shared responsibility of supplier and consumer to the problem of guns, then I believe more should be expected of the U.S.
It is not sufficient for U.S. officials to say that working to insure that guns sold in the U.S. do not enter Jamaica would be too disruptive of their commerce, or that it would divert them from the protection of their borders against terrorism. We could similarly turn their arguments against them with respect to drugs and our anti-terrorism efforts. I should point out that the deportee issue which involves persons of Jamaican birth being returned to Jamaica after committing criminal acts in the U.S., even when it may be the U.S. rather than Jamaica that is responsible for their criminal formation has a similar logic. There should be co-responsibility.
Gleaner: In Police and Crime Control in Jamaica, you assert that Jamaica has not only a crime problem but a policing problem. What would it take to create a truly effective police service for the country?
AH: It is one thing to have a crime problem. It is another to have an ineffective response to it. And it is yet another thing not to have the capacity to respond effectively to those crimes. I believe that in the case of the police force as the Minister of National Security has recently said as a country we have neglected these issues for too long. Much has to be done by way of capacity building-to create investigative capacity, intelligence capacity, and administrative capacity.
PROBLEM OF IMPUNITY
And there is a real problem of impunity with respect to certain types of crime, an assumption that no police action will follow them. High-end white-collar crime enjoys near impunity; extortion and murder are two others. Based on the experience of other high-violence countries, I am fearful that a similar situation could develop with respect to rape. An effective police service is a necessary condition for reducing impunity.
What would it take to have an effective police service? There are the suggestions of the West Kingston Commission of 2002, the various DFID (Department for International Development) or British government-sponsored teams which have been active between 1997 and the present, PERF, right back to the Wolf report of 1993. Any government or police commissioner need not grope in the dark. They have a platform on which to build. The challenge of police transformation may be thought of in terms of the content of change and the process of change. With regard to the content, the Corporate Strategy of the amaica Constabulary Force (JCF) sets out a fairly good perspective on what a new JCF should look like.
My professional ethic requires that I do not present myself as impartial when I am not - so I must admit that I was party to the draft. But I insist that it is a good working document. Let me therefore restrict my remarks to one issue that covers both content and process that is the issue of accountability. Better systems of accountability for police who fail in their duties must be an objective of any programme of change. It is by being serious about holding responsible persons to account that change will actually be effected. Gleaner: What role could education play in reducing the crime problem in Jamaica?
AH: I believe that an improved education system is important to both our long-term development and to eventual outcomes in terms of crime. What we must bear in mind, however, is that access to a basic education counts for little in terms of crime control - indeed it could lead to more crime if it creates high expectations among graduates who are not fitted for the labour force. It is educational accomplishment that really matters.
And this is why the quality of education and schooling is so important. When people invest 15 years of their lives and much of their and family's resources in their education, they develop a stake in trying to succeed by legitimate means. And it is not just a matter of gaining a certificate or two, but also requires some investment in acquiring the social skills necessary to succeed in the conventional world. Any criminal act could ruin their 15 years of investment in making a living by legitimate means.
The other side of this is that there are too many young Jamaicans, especially young males, who have not had proper educational opportunities or made sufficient investments in their education. Many are thus unemployable, have too little to lose or - worse - anticipate social failure if they were to take the legitimate routes that are available to them.
Jamaicans from all social groups highly value education as a means of upward mobility. Its benefits include greater social stability, and it gives credibility to the claim that there are real avenues to the top for the children of the poor.
Gleaner: Beyond police reform and expanded opportunities for education, what would be required for Jamaica to come to grips with crime?
AH: When we examine the data on homicides we see a consistency in the trend line. Overt political violence - even during election campaigns - has not been a problem in recent times. Not so, however, with ordinary criminal violence where there has been a steady, seemingly ineluctable, increase. But I still feel that reversal of the violence/homicide problem is possible.
POLITICS OF THE PROCESS
Allow me to focus on a single point, the politics of the process. I believe that very little will be accomplished without at least two-party consensus on the key things needed to make a concerted attack on crime. And experience suggests this is best facilitated when third party players from civil society are also involved. We have made some effort in this regard with the Vale Royal talks and the Report of the National Committee on Crime and Violence. But there have been setbacks, and my fear is that the longer it takes to accomplish this the more likely it is that communities of belief will develop around the crime problem and how it should be controlled. These communities of belief would be very problematic were they to run along party lines, as this would make consensus-building nearly impossible.
I already see signs of this, although fortunately party positions have not yet congealed. Once a position becomes part of core beliefs something which the parties campaign on and use to win support questioning it and giving it up will present problems. I have personally tried to keep an open mind on the crime problem, to keep my position empirically grounded rather than ideologically grounded. If both political parties remain open on the key issues consensus might be possible.
In order to facilitate the process of consensus-building, a National Commission on Crime Control and Public Safety should be established as a permanent body. The Caribbean Task Force on Crime has recommended this to all Caribbean governments, and I hear that it is working well in St. Lucia.
Moreover, given the legitimacy problems being encountered by the police and the State, there is a clear need for mediating structures between the State and police on one hand, and the police and public on the other. The systematic involvement of the public and their representative organisations in policy development via a National Commission - coupled with an associated system of accountability - would allow the people to develop a greater sense of responsibility for their security, and facilitate greater support and unity with respect to crime control policy. I really believe that it is possible to control the violence and to get fairly good short-term results - that is, to cut the murder rate in half. The rate would still be very high, and thereafter things would get more complicated and more difficult. But at that point we would begin to feel there was real hope of a solution.
We must understand that once a consensus is arrived at, however, the challenge becomes how to ensure effective implementation of the agreed ideas and plans. Many of us have been rightly critical of the failure to implement useful measures agreed on in the past. There are many reasons for these failures but one that I wish to highlight is that it takes resources to have these plans implemented.
I don't believe that we can afford to cut education or other social sectors in order to improve our security this would be self-defeating. I therefore think any serious effort may mean increased taxes. As citizens we must understand that there is no magical solution; we will have to make some sacrifices. But any government and police service that demand this of us should understand that we expect capable, responsible, and accountable leadership in return.
