Not surprisingly, there has already been significant response to The Sunday Gleaner's publication of a policeman's first-hand account of his corruption, over many years, in several divisions of the constabulary. There, apparently, is a deep sense of astonishment.

Our surprise is that so many people are surprised by this anonymous policeman's 'revelations'. Apparently they have not been listening; or if they have, have been too naïve to believe. For this cop has hardly broken new ground and neither is there an apparent context to his partial speaking out. There is strong anecdotal evidence of deep and widespread corruption in the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF), a problem that has been acknowledged by the current police chief, Lucius Thomas, and his predecessor, Francis Forbes.

However, decades of corrosion aren't easily cleared, as Mr. Thomas admitted in a speech to a service club this past October when he listed internal corruption as one of the two major issues facing the police force - after a shortage of resources. A year earlier, Mr. Thomas had confronted cops directly about this dishonesty in an address to the Police Federation.

But while we appreciated his frankness about the problem and his call for citizens' help in breaking the back of police corruption, we disagree with his ranking of it among the issues troubling the constabulary. For no amount of resources, alone, will lead to a better police force and a sustainable reduction in crime in the country, if the core of the constabulary suffers from dry rot and the vermin continue to eat away at the foundation.

Mr. Thomas is, of course, correct. Cops do not offer themselves graft and citizens have a responsibility not to offer and to resist, as well as report dishonest cops when solicited for bribes. However, even as citizens fulfil their part, the far greater responsibility lies with the leadership of the constabulary. It has to be singularly aggressive in the effort to weed out the corrupt. In other words, Mr. Thomas must not only talk about the problem, but relentlessly go about building a culture against corruption and forge an alliance in this regard from all ranks.

He has to be willing to take risks. For instance, four years ago, a national task force on crime suggested that up to 50 per cent of the officer corps of the constabulary should be weeded out to make room for younger, bright officers with fresh ideas. And nearly two years ago, as Mr. Forbes prepared to step down, he invited officers in his age group or with similar length of service, and would therefore be eligible, to opt for early retirement. This, too, would make way for fresh thinking at the top.

Some of these things have happened, but not aggressively enough. Mr. Thomas must begin to press, publicly, for some of these cops to go. He should also begin, with the appropriate investigative help, to finger the corrupt cops and begin, as publicly as possible, to drive them out of the force. He must also openly campaign for legislative changes to make it easier for the police chief, like other chief executive officers, to fire line employees and managers who do not perform up to par or are dishonest. Doing these things openly will build public confidence.

The policeman who has written of his own corruption, if he is serious about atonement and renewal of the constabulary, can come clean by identifying himself and naming names, even on the basis of immunity from prosecution.