With a razor-thin majority in Parliament and opportunistic elements of the Opposition hoping for a government misstep on which to pounce, Prime Minister Golding understandably played it relatively safe with the anti-crime initiatives he unveiled last week.

More precisely, perhaps, he went as far as he dared and as far as consensus would take him. And even at that, he has been chided by critics of his relatively modest plan. It is all very unfortunate.

Among Mr Golding's proposals that are being lashed by human-rights activists and defence lawyers is the one to allow for conviction for capital murders by a qualified majority of jurors. As it now stands, all the members of the panel have to agree for there to be a conviction, whether a case is capital murder, for which the death penalty is possible, or non-capital murder, for which the normal penalty is life in prison. In the absence of unanimity, the jury is dismissed and a retrial ordered.

Non-capital convictions

Under the proposed change in non-capital cases, a conviction could be returned if at least nine of 12 jurors vote guilty. The requirement of unanimity would be retained for capital offences.

The basis of Mr Golding's proposal is a quite understandable and logical first step in the face of Jamaica's crisis of murder and mayhem and the impunity with which criminals seem to act. Criminals understand their capacity to frighten and intimidate their way to freedom as well as to tie the legal system into knots of judicial impotence.

The fact that people are deeply fearful of giving even the most basic evidence in criminal cases is widely known in Jamaica and was recently highlighted by the director of public prosecutions, Ms Paula Llewellyn. And there is reason for this fear: It is not uncommon for witnesses, especially in murder cases, to be shot dead before they have a chance to give evidence.

Juror shortage

But it is not only witnesses who worry. So, too, do jurors. This fear manifests itself daily in the courts with the severe shortage of jurors. Many of the people called to jury duty just don't turn up, beg off or find ways around the system. Not only does this narrow the pool from which juries can be selected, but often it is people who would likely bring the most to the process that have the wherewithal to negotiate their way out of participation. And they mostly do it out of fear.

The sad truth is that if it can be avoided, most would not want to sit on a panel that convicts a notorious community 'don'. A single fearful hold-out in a case, even when the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt not only undermines the hard work of prosecutors, but allows the criminal the opportunity to resume his vice and mayhem. A qualified majority conviction, when the death penalty is not at stake, is a partial answer. Significantly, the proposal does not undermine an individual's right to a fair trial.

But even as this move is made, it may be timely as well as useful to begin a discussion on trial for murder by a single judge or a panel of judges, and in special circumstances with the identity of judges and witnesses kept secret. Jamaica, after all, faces a crisis.