In the wake of Tuesday's Vale Royal talks with the Opposition, Prime Minister Golding has been giving the appropriate signals.

The real question is whether he is prepared to take the really tough, but necessary, actions if we are to successfully confront the crisis of violent criminality in Jamaica. For, as Mr Golding must be aware, there are many people, some of whom may believe they possess outstanding political IOUs, lurking around the corner, ready to trip him up.

No specific undertakings, unfortunately, have as yet emerged from the summit. But it is no secret that the administration wants to implement something akin to the preventative detention of known criminals, against whom there is credible intelligence but with the evidence not reaching the threshold of what will stand up in the court of law. Or, at the very least, the Government hopes to extend the time a person accused of a crime can be held in lock-up before being eligible for bail.

Law enforcement officials and policymakers see such powers as important in the context of an environment where witnesses are often intimidated, and sometimes killed, and where persons on multiple murder charges easily find themselves free on bail.

Suppress criminal excesses

Hopefully, such action will help to suppress criminal excesses, helping to bring major crimes to tolerable levels so that 'normal' policing is viable.

Of course, many people, and not only the extremist civil libertarians, are understandably concerned about giving what they see as excessive power to law enforcement officials. They recall the misuse of the old Suppression of Crime Act that allowed the police wide powers for arrest and fear for the abuse of human rights.

Those legitimate issues can be reasonably dealt with by what anthropologist Don Robotham called a "human rights-based" process. As with the authorisation of electronic eavesdropping on criminal suspects, for instance, a prima facie case of criminality against a prospective detainee may have to be made before a judge in chambers. The authorities, too, should outline very clear guidelines under which persons can be detained for extended periods.

It is also possible to build into the process the capacity for human rights organisations to review the conditions under which persons are being detained and/or denied bail.

Compelling arguments

Mr Golding is correct about the need to explain and to "take the public into our confidence" in going forward with any such measures. But he has compelling arguments for being bold and decisive, none better than the more than 700 people already murdered here this year and the deep fear in which the majority of Jamaicans live.

Indeed, to do nothing, or to assume that things can only change when the economy is booming and the Government has the surpluses to fund massive social intervention projects, is only to deepen the dysfunctionality of the Jamaican society. It is up to us, as Mr Golding says, to decide whether we are "prepared to be inconvenienced in order to strengthen our capacity to restore order to communities that have been taken over by criminal elements".

We believe the vast majority of Jamaicans will say: yes! They only look forward to good leadership, untainted by partisan considerations. And that is the challenge faced by Mr Golding and others who control the levers of national power. The Opposition has already signalled its support for the Government on this matter. Mr Golding can count on ours once the process is decently handled.