Phyllis Thomas, Enterprise EditorPOLICEMEN WHO have been causing the Government to pay out huge sums of money annually, because of their reckless use of the gun, will, if the Government heeds the calls from human rights groups and civil society, have to pay a portion of the claims being brought against the Government.
"When the State has to pay, due to negligence or misbehaviour of agents of the State, they should be called upon to pay a portion of it," said Delroy Chuck, Opposition Spokesman on Justice, who is among those
suggesting that the offending police should help foot the bill for compensation. "It is within the power of the State to impose such a penalty," he said, "It is done for other infractions."
Mr. Chuck even has a set of conditions for payment and a formula for how such payments should be computed. "It can be worked out as to the proportion. It may depend on the level of culpability, so if it is gross negligence or deliberate, the amount (to be paid) might be higher than if it was negligence on the part of the agent."
And how will they pay? Mr. Chuck argues: "Payment could be stretched over a period of years and deducted from their salaries." Carolyn Gomes, chairperson for Jamaicans for Justice, supports the moot. "Absolutely," she chimed, "I strongly believe that they should pay."
She added: "But that is only one piece of the puzzle. The other part is accountability. When they are held accountable for breaches of the law, they may think before they commit more acts of indiscretion which sometimes lead to death."
But the police whose rank-and- file group is now in negotiations with Government for a salary increase demanding a 45 per cent increase in basic salary for the first year and 30 per cent in the second of a two-year contract to run from April 2006-2008 have rejected the idea. "My initial reaction would be no," said Carl Angel, director of communications. He spoke of the vileness of the criminals they faced, who are prepared to "shoot first and ask questions later." Against that background, he wanted to know if the police would be required to make compensations in all cases.
A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS
Mr. Angel said, however, that the police were employed by the Government and, therefore, any decision that the police should pay a portion of the compensation bill would have to be a Govern-ment one. But, "it would require a lot of discussions for that policy decision," he said and added: "Our aim is to reduce the homicide rate and major crime. We are down 26 per cent for May."
The monthly salary for a constable is $31,676 at the lowest end and $35,839 at the other end. For corporals it is $36,832 and $41,672; sergeants, $41,848 and $47,347; and, for inspectors, it is $47,602 for the lowest-paid inspector and $53,857 for the highest-paid person.
If a constable whose salary is $31,676 a month, had to pay, for example, 25 per cent of a $2 million settlement/award per month, he would pay $8,333 a month and therefore take home $23,343 per month. The table above shows what this scenario would be for the corporal, sergeant and inspector as well.
