Orville Taylor

Finally! The two parties agree. Out of the Vale Royal talks, the ruling Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and the Opposition People's National Party (PNP) have apparently signed off on a crime plan that seems to be on a collision course with human-rights advocates. Yes, when entities that are generally antagonistic agree, they sometimes combine to trample on the very rights and freedoms that allowed them to ascend to their places of authority.

After all, there is a chasm between the 'Solid Rockers' and the 'Portiaphiles' and a small but developing crack between the Labourites and poor Derrick Smith, who was unceremoniously rail-roaded and humiliated. Both of these circumstances betray a sort of inhumanity that makes one wonder, what would they do to strangers if they treat their colleagues in such a manner?

My comments regarding the resurgence of the solid rock have been made. However, with respect to Smith, Prime Minister Bruce Golding owes him an apology for the humiliating way in which he was removed from office. It was done poorly; a new person declaring publicly that he had the job, when there was no vacancy. For the record, British/Commonwealth jurisprudence and Convention 158 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) treat freedom from arbitrary dismissal as a fundamental human right at work.

Still, the acting minister, the official government spokeswoman and the incumbent were apparently totally oblivious. To make matters worse, a labelled pro-government newspaper carried the scoop, indicating that the decision was made at a meeting apparently not set by the prime minister. Don't be mistaken. Given the questions surrounding his health, Golding cannot be faulted for wanting to replace him with someone who is more able-bodied, even if he is a geriatric.

pressure

Reportedly, Smith is being ostracised for speaking the truth, as we all suspected. He declared on public television that Golding called him and said that he was under pressure and had to remove him. As with the rest of the public, the source of the pressure was unknown, but it is suspected that, like beauty, the truth lies in the observer's mind.

Having dealt with that, let's move to the crime plan. Several good provisions include: the increased capability in securing DNA and its uses; improved police access to public records and databases; and, an overall augmentation of the force's use of high technology to combat the new breed of criminals.

Nevertheless, there are three worrisome elements of the plan. First is the decision to deny bail for 60 days to persons charged for serious crimes; second is the raising of the period of detention without charge from 24 to 72 hours; and third, the introduction of majority verdicts for non-capital murder.

However, it appears that the prime minister, minister of national security, opposition spokesman on security, and of course, the leader of opposition, do not think of the possibility that their own supporters, relatives or even they themselves could ever face the court.

Imagine a suspect, who commits a homicide in self-defence, but there is a bit of doubt in the mind of the arresting officer. Suppose an over-zealous security guard shoots an armed intruder who attempts to break into the JLP headquarters at Belmont Road? This worker, who would have built up 20 years of equity in his job, would lose it because his contract would have been 'frustrated' by the 60 days' detention. Clearly, there is no presumption of innocence here.

Cursory research suggests that close to 70 per cent of murder charges result in acquittals. Around half of these are due to sloppy police work and the remainder are truly innocent. What this simply means is around 40 per cent of accused did not deserve to be charged. One wouldn't imagine that the person is a MacMillan, Simpson, Phillips or Golding, eh?

corruption

With respect to the raising of the 24-hour bar to 72, the removal of discretion from judges and placing it in the hands of a few elite officers of the Jamaican constabulary raises the question of a lack of faith in the judiciary. While there is a common cry from members of the police that suspects are often given bail when they oppose it, it has not been established that this has occurred in a fashion inconsistent with the Constitution. Is the legislature saying that it is better equipped to administer law, including the Constitution, than Supreme Court judges?

True, some commissioners have law degrees, but that hardly qualifies them. Furthermore, there is an implicit assumption that the officer corps is free from the insidious corruption that the force is stigmatised by. Most of these gentlewomen and men are personally known to me and I would bet my bottom dollar that they are clean cops. However, given the law of averages and margins of error, is it not likely that there is at least one of the 25 who is either incompetent or at least biased? By the way, isn't the commandant of the Island Special Constabulary Force (ISCF) a commissioner as well? Or is it that the ISCF personnel are not expected to be able to arrest suspects for major crimes?

In any event, how likely is it that an assistant commissioner will overturn the recommendation of his/her squaddie superintendent, whom he/she 'trusts'?

Finally, when one is about to send a person to prison for 25 years for non-capital murder, should there not be unanimity? DCP Mark Shields likes it because majority verdicts exist in the UK. Certainly, this is not the norm internationally, and bet you that proportionally, more black Britons get this than whites.

We are facing hard times, but we must not lose the humanity in the process.

Dr Orville Taylor is senior lecturer in the Department of Sociology, Psychology and Social Work at UWI, Mona. Feedback may be sent to orville.taylor@uwimona,edu.jm or columns@gleanerjm.com