The Editor, Sir:

I am writing in response to the article by Don Robotham and published in The Sunday Gleaner of June 22. Firstly I strongly disagree with the argument that preventive detention would be able to provide Jamaica with breathing room necessary to tackle the crime problem. The premise behind this statement is that it will give the police the time necessary to build a strong enough case to carry suspects to trial and conviction. But this logic falls apart under further examination, if under the conditions of preventive detention suspects can be detained then should just the head of a gang be detained or anyone suspected of being involved in the gang, clearly not only the gang leader is capable of intimidating suspects and committing crimes. Furthermore if a leader is simply removed from the streets someone can easily fill his shoes.

Detentions

I understand the desire to do something to tackle the crime problem. But we have to be wary of what we attempt to do even in desperation. Robotham argues that 'Preventive detention will be implemented impartially, or not at all'. Past experience definitely does not suggest impartiality on the part of the security forces. More importantly the limit for detentions in place as a preventive legal measure to rein in police power, to remove this would be to strip citizens of their constitutional rights. The constitutional protections should not be played with as the Government sees fit, because the constitution serves to regulate the power of the state. If the state can change the constitution easily it in effect becomes unregulated.

Necessary control

How do we know that only criminals will be 'preventatively detained'? How can we compensate someone who is wrongfully detained? This is why 'preventive detention' is more of a problem than a solution, because it will lack a necessary control mechanism. If the police know that a person has committed a crime then charges should be brought and preventive detention would be unnecessary. Preventive detention would make it legal to punish an individual for a crime before they are convicted in court, which would be a slippery slope to travel.

Robotham also claims 'The issue is whether you are willing to give up some habeas corpus rights in order to protect the very foundation of the rule of law in Jamaica. In every country, the rule of law in the final analysis rests on the monopoly of the use of force by the state'. This cannot be any further from the truth; this boils down to saying you need to give up your rights in order to protect your rights. Sounds silly? That's because it is. Furthermore the state does not need to have a monopoly on use of force, what a state does possess is a monopoly on LEGITIMATE use of force. Ergo the majority of society needs to believe that when the state or agents of the state use force it is justified.

More resources

However, I do believe that the police need to be given more resources in order to conduct investigations in a swift and efficient manner. This along with improving the judicial system would go a long way in getting cases to trial and holding suspects accountable for their actions. Oh sure such measure would take time to implement, and we have a problem with crime now. But the quick fix, preventive detention should be seen as just that a stop gap attempt to solve a problem that goes deeper and is far more complex than this poorly thought through 'solution' would have us believe. In an attempt to make our situation better we Jamaicans have to be vigilant and ensure that we do not make our predicament worse.

I am, etc.,

KOFI JAMES

james.kofi@gmail.com

Kingston 19