In a letter to this newspaper which was published last Wednesday, former Attorney General Anil Nandlall wrote that a “bold and aggressive response by the police is needed at this point in time.”
He was referring to the renewed upsurge in violent crime which has made its appearance recently, although in fairness, he acknowledged that crime waves were nothing new to this country, and did not begin with this government. His point in this instance, however, was that the bold and aggressive response which was wanted in the current situation would trigger allegations of extra-judicial killings and police harassment, and that there were no other issues in the last twenty years which had “exacted a more strident and consistent condemnation from the PNC.” They had used it, he said, as a “political weapon,” but it had now become their “Achilles heel,” and he wondered how they would “extricate themselves from this conundrum.”
Is one to conclude from what Mr Nandlall says that “bold” action from the police would inevitably involve killing and strong-arm tactics, but that such killing is not extra-judicial in nature, but legal? Or are we to understand that even if there is extra-judicial killing and police “harassment” it is justified in the circumstances of a “crime spree”?
As it is, the PPP/C in office faced with a rise in banditry, especially, favoured a very confrontational approach in which sections of the police force became notoriously trigger happy. It resisted any investigations into police shootings where the victim – criminal or not – was unarmed, and the GPF became notorious for its mendacious press releases stating that the police had shot and killed x or y because he had attacked them with a cutlass, or even a knife.
In other words, the previous government, no doubt unintentionally, ended up conveying the impression that they considered the most effective method for dealing with serious crime was to kill the perpetrators. They would not take action against policemen involved in illegal shootings, the disappearance of suspects, or strong-arm tactics, even when, as became apparent in the case of the Black Clothes Police, as they were known, they had operated as a private enforcement agency involved in a slew of illegal activities. Despite the evidence to this effect presented in a US courtroom, it took a long time before the government could be pressured to disband this unit.
The point is, there is no conundrum, because it does not need a resort to illegal methods for the police to tackle the crime situation. There are certain time-tested methods used in all western-style jurisdictions which have applicability here as well, and the senior echelons of the force know well what these are. Even in the case of armed criminals, the police protocols are well established, although not usually well followed. As it is, the police could use a serious infusion of professionalism, which should be applied to all crime scenes and other operations, in addition to which, it might be added, one hopes the forensic laboratory can be rescued and will become functional.
It is also critical to work on building the trust of the population. Without the co-operation of the public, crimes will not be solved – which is something the senior officer corps also knows very well. And for many years that co-operation has been lacking, not least because the police were not trusted and were suspected in some cases of being in league with the criminals. It should be noted too, that when people saw that the predilection of law enforcement was to shoot suspects as a first response, they became unwilling to provide information.
It is good news, therefore, that it was a tip-off from a citizen which brought the police to Craig last week, and that they arrested the members of a gang alleged to have been responsible for some recent violent crimes. They killed the leader of the gang, however, and injured another member and it is that, perhaps, which raises one reservation about an operation which was in other respects commendable. Neighbours have claimed that only the police did any shooting; they were not shot at. If that is indeed the case, perhaps the SWAT team stormed in shooting because they did not know whether the men were armed or not, and in the process the leader was killed and a member along with a policeman, wounded. Significant is the fact that only one pistol was recovered from the house, and to the public it hardly sounds credible that the occupants with a single Taurus would have opened fire on heavily armed policemen. One expects that in the light of this a review of the operation would be undertaken.
One other disturbing detail is the allegation of a neighbour that he was beaten by the police to say what he knew, which was nothing; even the police came to recognize that that was so, he said. If what has been alleged in this regard is true, it means that Mr Nandlall’s “aggressive” policing is still alive and well, and should be addressed; once again, members of the public will not assist the force if they do not trust it, or are afraid of its officers for any reason.
Having said all that, it must be noted that although there has been an upsurge in violent crime, there has been a corresponding upsurge in arrests. That is a relief for the citizenry, and is indicative of renewed energy on the part of the GPF for which they should be given credit. Killings by the police in the past did nothing to halt crime; a high arrest rate is far more likely to have the impact desired.