We understand Christopher Zacca's frustration at the pace, or, more appropriately, the lack thereof, with which the legislature has pursued the proposed amendments to several law enforcement bills that a year ago everyone agreed were necessary to fight crime.

What is particularly alarming is the Government's seeming fading, if not lack of, enthusiasm for the bills, as if, like administrations past, it has already accommodated itself to the higher levels of crime that triggered last year's move towards a toughening of the laws. So, it appears, new benchmarks have to be breached before there is again that level of agitation.

Sixteen hundred homicides and over 2,000 shootings are now passé.

Perhaps, therefore, it is to be left to Mr Zacca's soon-to-be-chosen successor as president of the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica, once the new crime thresholds have been reached, to adopt the former's complaint that "the nation's worsening crime situation has not received the priority attention it deserves from our political leaders".

Proposed amendments

The proposed amendments were broadly in response to the public's demand for action in the face of a sharp spiral in murders, and other crimes, during the early months of 2008, and appeared to have been largely agreed between the Government and the Opposition at the so-called Vale Royal Summit.

They largely deal with imposing a minimum sentence of 15 years, but up to life inprisonment, for convictions of criminal violence, and extending by three years, to 10 the time a convicted person has to serve before being eligible for parole.

The more critical of the proposed changes, though, are those having to do with bail:

Extending to 72 hours the time someone can stay in lock-up before he has to be brought before the courts for a bail hearing;

Placing the onus on the accused to make the case for bail;

Giving the prosecution the right to appeal against the granting of bail; and more fundamentally,

Allowing people who have been accused of or have previously been convicted of certain crimes, such as murder, conspiracy to murder, shooting or drug trafficking, to be held for up to 60 days without bail.

Civil libertarians

Not surprisingly, civil libertarians have opposed these amendments, particularly those dealing with bail. The Opposition People's National Party has found it good politics to retreat from the broad undertakings of support it gave at Vale Royal. It can crow about protecting rights and withholding its support for those bills that demand two-thirds majority for passage. But that is hardly responsible.

The police often complain about the numbers of persons who are on bail who commit crime; and we have a good sense, if not the kind of evidence that will stand up in court, about the intimidation of witnesses, including the orchestration of their murders, by accused persons let out on bail. Often, this sequestering of suspects, as is possible with suspected terrorists in Britain, is important to the building of the case against them and for the safety of the society.

This newspaper, of course, does not believe that tougher laws will, by themselves, solve crime. It is also important to have an effective and efficient police force. But it is important to work on several fronts simultaneously.

In that regard, governments can become discouraged and overwhelmed. And when the Opposition is recalcitrant, it (the government) must be prepared to take the case directly to the people.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.