It is certainly a reasonable question to ask of the Opposition why it was not forceful in its objections, if it had any, when the bill was before a joint Parliamentary committee, or why they did not issue a minority report.

We too, as well as interest groups and the public generally, might have raised concerns. It didn't happen. So, we are where we are with the Proceeds of Crime Act.

And the fact is, despite its passage bythe Upper House, the bill remains just that - a bill. It isn't yet law. There is, therefore, still time for reflection. And we believe that this bill deserves another look, before the society decides to take such a fundamental step, which, if not unconstitutional, overturns fundamental principles of rights and freedoms as well as the concept of guilt or innocence before the law.

The reference here is to the provision in the bill that would allow the court, in the absence of a conviction of a crime and on the application of the relevant agency, to order the forfeiture of any property deemed to have been obtained via unlawful conduct.

We understand what the Government and the framers of the legislation want to achieve, for we too are concerned about the deepening criminality in Jamaica, including drug smuggling and extortion, from which some people accumulate vast wealth. But as much as we may be sympathetic to the aims of the authorities, we, like the Jamaica Labour Party's Dorothy Lightbourne, are fearful that we might be going, if we have not yet gone, too far.

What this proposed legislation presumes is that guilt need not be determined as "proof beyond reasonable doubt;" the new standard, it seems, is a balance of probability.

This new, lower standard, will not apply to a criminal offence, but is a civil procedure catch-all that will allow the authorities to cast their net far and wide. And as Ms. Lightbourne pointed out, may allow us to reach verdicts based on hearsay rather than hard facts and, of necessity, sound evidence.

It will be far easier to snare someone who is presumed to have a criminal lifestyle or has engaged in criminal conduct, but the grave danger is that anyone can be held - particularly if suppositions become the significant, if not primary bait of the net.

Indeed, it is not our position that these concerns have their foundation in sandy soil and neither is a declaration that similar provisions having passed the bar of European standards is of itself meritorious. We are not impressed either that a United Kingdom law contains similar provisions.

The point is that Caribbean civilisation is worthy of establishing its own standards, and given our history, to be more deeply bound by principle. We should perhaps be wary of any lowering of the bar.

If indeed there is concern that people with wealth from criminal enterprises are able to elude the law, perhaps the authorities need to become more creative rather than attempting muscular measures that weaken fundamental rights. Tax assessment, for instance, is one obvious tool that appears not be widely employed in Jamaica against perceived criminals.

As we have said before, worse than formulating bad policy - or bad law for that matter - is implementing it.