THE EDITOR, Madam:
SOME TIME ago a policeman was killed while drinking in a bar at about 8 a.m. I felt then, as I feel now, that it was not a good thing for our law officers to be frequenting bars. It is worse to do so, armed with a gun, which seemed to have been the aim of the culprits.
Later, a colleague shot a policeman while on a mission. His colleague shot in the dark and it was clear that this episode caused serious embarrassment, not only to the police force but also to the country. Recently a group was convened to help the police. I am not sure of the mandate or terms of reference, but at its launch there were persons on TV rooting for the police and bemoaning the support given to "criminal" elements while the police are being victimised and demoralised.
On the face of it, this is a laudable move. Nonetheless, in spite of the positive intentions we must place certain issues squarely on the police. Issues such as professionalism. No civic body can put professionalism into the force. One can argue that in the face of great institutional degradation facing us daily, the police would not be left out of the wave of events. But professionalism is what the police need.
The job is a difficult and dangerous one. It may even be a thankless one. It is only recently that Government has moved to put into place suitable compensation for their untimely death. The police therefore need to be pragmatic about their jobs and how they approach it.
In a job like theirs, with so much risks and responsibilities, the police have to make sure they understand the things that will aid their success and enhance their jobs. These things should move beyond the urge to use "superior violence". Violent response and calls for hanging is not the answer.
Now some suggestions:
1) We need to move to a high tech level of operation. It is going to be more brains than brawn that will win the fight against crime. It is very rare that evidence is not left but there has to be the approach and infrastructure that can handle the investigation to make the breakthrough.
There are the times when our police act creditably (the speed of response in the Playfair murder was First World!) but until it is the norm, criminals will have the confidence to commit crime, expecting to get away with them.
2) In spite of the urge to 'rub out' criminals, a live suspect is valuable to the solution and prevention of other crimes. There is perhaps no democratic country where the emphasis on killing people is the effective way to fight crime.
3) The moral persons within the force should make their efforts be effective in keeping check on the moral fibre of the organisation.
4) Computer databases should be implemented to help in tracking vehicles. The most basic of course, is the ability to immediately link the licence numbers of cars to the persons to whom they are registered. Other parameters of colour and model can also help.
5) They should lobby that a comprehensive ballistics data on all firearms be kept. This applies to legal firearm holders, companies and the police. As soon as a spent casing is found it is filed and traced.
6) Seek outside help. Both in the technical and investigative arenas, we can use help. What gives criminals confidence is not the lack of firepower of the police but the chance of getting away without being brought to trial.
7) Set some operating standards. At least allow the man in the street to be able to say that certain allegations about the police are not likely to be true.
Jungle law and brute force will not work in the 21st century where success is primarily driven by knowledge, thinking and application of technology.
I am 100% behind the police. One has to note that there are many social and economic ills but we must move to really solve our problems. Personally, I wish for the day when our homes, not to mention our police stations can do without the omnipresent burglar bars.
I am etc,
ALRICK ROBINSON
E-mail: alrob@cwjamaica.com
