The Editor, Sir:

I've read your story on corruption in the JCF and was very disappointed, yet not shocked.

This is a sad story, but the generalisation used by members of the public in describing the police could lead to further corruption.

I spent 15 years in the JCF, but I was forced to leave 21 years ago because of this generalisation, where all police officers were criticised for the actions of a few bad cops. What I saw back there was good, decent, honest men leaving the force, and the country, and were replaced by men of lower character. We were tired of being blamed for the action of a few bad eggs.

The public need to name these corrupt cops and stop calling them 'the police'. When they name them, the force will be compelled to deal with them. If officer 'John Doe' does something to an individual, he/she should name that officer instead of saying the police did it.

Identify individual cops

Identifying the individual officer could acomplish two goals: prevents him or her from hiding among the ranks, and encourage the honest cop for his/her honest stand. This will help to break down the 'us them' mentality, which promotes the code of silence. It will also encourage the honest police officer to remain honest and also remain in the force.

If the Jamaica public make this distinction between good and bad cop, instead of generalisation, it will encourage good officers to stand up against those who are disgracing the force. It will also help the force to keep its honest members, who are in the majority.

It is necessary to weed out the bad cops, but it is also crucial to encourage the good officers.

I am, etc.,

W.O. ANDERSON

ja445@aol.com

Florida

Via Go-Jamaica