Tweet
Fighting crime Reneto's way
HOWARD GREGORY
Sunday, August 22, 2010
SEVERAL years ago when former Senior Superintendent of Police Reneto Adams was on his rise to public attention, I was part of a gathering of clergy who listened to a presentation he made concerning crime-fighting and his approach to the same.
It was at a time of growing concern about the increase in crime statistics, and murders in particular. A representative group of the church was disturbed by this development and wanted to express its concern about the developing situation and also to find out how it could assist the police.
Mr Adams' presentation on that occasion was clear, demonstrated a careful analysis of the crime statistics, and was presented in a moral framework which, at the time, seemed quite credible. He did not, in any way, suggest that the challenge before the police was easy, but expressed a clear commitment to pursuing the path of crime-fighting with a view to reducing the statistics.
Conscious of the magnitude of the task, and desiring to support the work of law enforcement, we gave our support to Mr Adams and his stated approach, as he had just embarked on a new assignment.
Subsequent events revealed that, while Mr Adams' diagnosis of the problem may have been somewhat on target, his methodology for treating the problem was definitely off base. Controversy attended him for the rest of his career in the police force, although he was never convicted of any wrongdoing. As a controversial figure, persons either loved him and supported him, or hated him and had not a good word to say about him.
His early retirement from the force and his expressed interest in the job of commissioner of police when it was last vacant, received a similar response. Now, he has come back in the news with his visit to Tredegar Park two Fridays ago and his utterances concerning the shape that crime-fighting should take in that community in the wake of the massacre of eight residents. He is reported in the media to have said on that occasion:
"My policy is that where criminals are concerned, we are to identify them and treat them like the ferocious crocodiles and alligators, having them killed in the eggs before they are hatched."
"Anywhere you see the alligators and crocodiles, have them killed before they devour you."
This most glaring utterance on his part has evoked the usual response of divided loyalty from the public.
There is no way to gloss over the violence inherent in this position. It is a clear call to violence in the name of law and order and the maintenance of order within this and other communities affected by crime and violence.
This comment is a most unfortunate one and provides the clearest statement of why Mr Adams' tenure has been surrounded by so much controversy and why persons must now be breathing a sigh of relief that the Police Service Commission did not give positive consideration to his application to become the current commissioner of police.
Having said all of this in terms of the pronouncements and the responses to Mr Adams, I must point out that he is not just some kind of rarity who stands in the outfield of public opinion. I am proposing that he is as good a representative as any of where many Jamaicans stand on these issues, and is indeed representative of the position articulated by some religious groups, who unabashedly provide the theological justification for such a position.
I would like to return to this position, but for now I would like to note the philosophical position inherent in this kind of approach to crime-fighting, which asserts that violence is to be fought with violence of equal intensity and, when fought in the name of law and order, is not only justified but effective.
For a moment I would like to invite persons to place alongside Mr Adams' prescription, the following comments from one equally violent person who was on the other side of the law and criminality. Here I speak of Cedric 'Doggie' Murray, one of the persons on the police most wanted list for a long time, one who was killed recently in an alleged exchange of gunfire with the police in St James, and whose personal diary reveal his commitment to Christopher 'Dudus' Coke, the violence he unleashed on the security forces during their invasion of Tivoli Gardens, and his commitment to a life of violent resistance. It is reported that in his Ode to 'Dudus' he wrote words to this effect:
"May 24, invasion of Tivoli Gardens by Babylon -- the enemy.
"Gunshots rang out for hours from every corner in West Kingston and other places to protect the man: don of all dons, Christopher 'Dudus' Coke."
"I fired my AK-47 until my fingers were numb. I ate gunpowder until my throat was sore. Babylon feel seh man a fool like dem, and dem can jus come and kill mi. Dem betta know seh gangsta fi life. All out when mi get drawn out, straight bullet fi dem. My gun is my best friend. We are always together."
There is clearly no question about the intensity of violence which is expressed in these few lines and the destruction of which it is capable. The question for us as a society, though, is this: will we be able to restore law and order, civility and justice, by having two forces of such professed violence and violent intention face off against each other?
I am a strong believer that it will never happen and that violence only begets violence, not justice and peace.
This is precisely where some of the religious groups have been giving sanction to this kind of approach which seeks to match fire with fire and who give support to the notion that this is not only consistent with the justice of God but is the actual expression of the same.
The lex taliones of Leviticus 19:18, the "eye for an eye" principle, is interpreted is such a way to undergird the law of retaliation or revenge which supports the legal principle that prescribes retaliating in kind for crimes committed.
One historical source suggests that this principle had its origins in early civilisation when there was no well-established social system for settling wrongs and served its purpose well in that era, but now it has been replaced by the state and a legal process and judicial system which prescribes the appropriate punishment for dealing with offences.
The problem as I see it is that there is a religious community which is locked into the Old Testament treatment of the lex taliones and which fails to realise its relevance and application to early civilisation as found in Palestine of that era, but also that persons who claim to be Christians have yet to hear Jesus' words, which move beyond the principle of the lex taliones and call for a more radical and humane principle for settling wrongs within the context of community.
My exploration of material on the subject of punishment and the handling of offensive behaviour has led me to some material on proportionality, retributivism, and utilitarianism, making use of that wonderful tool of modern technology, wikipedia. Proportionality is defined as requiring that the level of punishment be scaled relative to the severity of the offending behaviour. At the same time, this does not mean that the punishment has to be equivalent to the crime.
This is a principle which seems to get lost on those who would want us to fight crime and violence with the same measure and intensity as those committing offending behaviours. Thus, for those who support this position we can advance the cause of law and justice by lining up the violence advocated by Mr Adams against the violence of Cedric 'Doggie' Murray.
Far more useful to us, I believe, is an approach of philosophers of punishment who have contrasted retributivism with utilitarianism. The contrast as outlined by one researcher gets to the heart of some of the issues with which we wrestle in our approach to crime-fighting. "For utilitarians, punishment is forward-looking, justified by a purported ability to achieve future social benefits, such as crime reduction. For retributionists, punishment is backward-looking, and strictly for punishing crimes according to their severity". We may add to this assessment the fact that one expression of the utilitarian approach which is currently a part of our legal system in Jamaica is that of restorative justice.
I make no secret about the fact that I believe that the better way for this society in dealing with crime-fighting is that of the utilitarian approach and its forward-looking perspective. The Court will probably never have an investigation into the circumstances of the death of Cedric 'Doggie' Murray, and the din of the voices of those celebrating his death may be heard for a long time to come. And yet, I cannot but be struck by three things about the life of this young man.
The first of these was his love and devotion for Christopher 'Dudus' Coke, whom he was willing to call his "father". Is this life just a "crocodile" whom we should kill while still an egg, or is there here a life that was abandoned and which yearned for the love of a father who either abandoned or neglected this life while still an egg? And yet we are so proud to celebrate manhood by the bars and street corners of our society.
The second thing that strikes me about this young man is that he kept a diary. It has been my experience while functioning in the field of counselling and therapy that persons who keep diaries are among the most creative minds, who have a very deep emotional life, but whose public world is either too painful or restrictive for them to show this dimension of their life to others. Additionally, this young man could write, and wrote with sense and meaning so that even the casual reader can grasp something of the intensity and depth of his inner life.
Perhaps, if we would pause as a society, step back from the retributive attraction to crime-fighting, and nurture those eggs before they hatch, we may discover that they are not alligators and crocodiles, but human lives created by God and just waiting for the appropriate social environment to blossom and become creative and productive members of society.
-- Howard Gregory is the Suffragan Bishop of Montego Bay
HOWARD GREGORY
Sunday, August 22, 2010
SEVERAL years ago when former Senior Superintendent of Police Reneto Adams was on his rise to public attention, I was part of a gathering of clergy who listened to a presentation he made concerning crime-fighting and his approach to the same.
It was at a time of growing concern about the increase in crime statistics, and murders in particular. A representative group of the church was disturbed by this development and wanted to express its concern about the developing situation and also to find out how it could assist the police.
Mr Adams' presentation on that occasion was clear, demonstrated a careful analysis of the crime statistics, and was presented in a moral framework which, at the time, seemed quite credible. He did not, in any way, suggest that the challenge before the police was easy, but expressed a clear commitment to pursuing the path of crime-fighting with a view to reducing the statistics.
Conscious of the magnitude of the task, and desiring to support the work of law enforcement, we gave our support to Mr Adams and his stated approach, as he had just embarked on a new assignment.
Subsequent events revealed that, while Mr Adams' diagnosis of the problem may have been somewhat on target, his methodology for treating the problem was definitely off base. Controversy attended him for the rest of his career in the police force, although he was never convicted of any wrongdoing. As a controversial figure, persons either loved him and supported him, or hated him and had not a good word to say about him.
His early retirement from the force and his expressed interest in the job of commissioner of police when it was last vacant, received a similar response. Now, he has come back in the news with his visit to Tredegar Park two Fridays ago and his utterances concerning the shape that crime-fighting should take in that community in the wake of the massacre of eight residents. He is reported in the media to have said on that occasion:
"My policy is that where criminals are concerned, we are to identify them and treat them like the ferocious crocodiles and alligators, having them killed in the eggs before they are hatched."
"Anywhere you see the alligators and crocodiles, have them killed before they devour you."
This most glaring utterance on his part has evoked the usual response of divided loyalty from the public.
There is no way to gloss over the violence inherent in this position. It is a clear call to violence in the name of law and order and the maintenance of order within this and other communities affected by crime and violence.
This comment is a most unfortunate one and provides the clearest statement of why Mr Adams' tenure has been surrounded by so much controversy and why persons must now be breathing a sigh of relief that the Police Service Commission did not give positive consideration to his application to become the current commissioner of police.
Having said all of this in terms of the pronouncements and the responses to Mr Adams, I must point out that he is not just some kind of rarity who stands in the outfield of public opinion. I am proposing that he is as good a representative as any of where many Jamaicans stand on these issues, and is indeed representative of the position articulated by some religious groups, who unabashedly provide the theological justification for such a position.
I would like to return to this position, but for now I would like to note the philosophical position inherent in this kind of approach to crime-fighting, which asserts that violence is to be fought with violence of equal intensity and, when fought in the name of law and order, is not only justified but effective.
For a moment I would like to invite persons to place alongside Mr Adams' prescription, the following comments from one equally violent person who was on the other side of the law and criminality. Here I speak of Cedric 'Doggie' Murray, one of the persons on the police most wanted list for a long time, one who was killed recently in an alleged exchange of gunfire with the police in St James, and whose personal diary reveal his commitment to Christopher 'Dudus' Coke, the violence he unleashed on the security forces during their invasion of Tivoli Gardens, and his commitment to a life of violent resistance. It is reported that in his Ode to 'Dudus' he wrote words to this effect:
"May 24, invasion of Tivoli Gardens by Babylon -- the enemy.
"Gunshots rang out for hours from every corner in West Kingston and other places to protect the man: don of all dons, Christopher 'Dudus' Coke."
"I fired my AK-47 until my fingers were numb. I ate gunpowder until my throat was sore. Babylon feel seh man a fool like dem, and dem can jus come and kill mi. Dem betta know seh gangsta fi life. All out when mi get drawn out, straight bullet fi dem. My gun is my best friend. We are always together."
There is clearly no question about the intensity of violence which is expressed in these few lines and the destruction of which it is capable. The question for us as a society, though, is this: will we be able to restore law and order, civility and justice, by having two forces of such professed violence and violent intention face off against each other?
I am a strong believer that it will never happen and that violence only begets violence, not justice and peace.
This is precisely where some of the religious groups have been giving sanction to this kind of approach which seeks to match fire with fire and who give support to the notion that this is not only consistent with the justice of God but is the actual expression of the same.
The lex taliones of Leviticus 19:18, the "eye for an eye" principle, is interpreted is such a way to undergird the law of retaliation or revenge which supports the legal principle that prescribes retaliating in kind for crimes committed.
One historical source suggests that this principle had its origins in early civilisation when there was no well-established social system for settling wrongs and served its purpose well in that era, but now it has been replaced by the state and a legal process and judicial system which prescribes the appropriate punishment for dealing with offences.
The problem as I see it is that there is a religious community which is locked into the Old Testament treatment of the lex taliones and which fails to realise its relevance and application to early civilisation as found in Palestine of that era, but also that persons who claim to be Christians have yet to hear Jesus' words, which move beyond the principle of the lex taliones and call for a more radical and humane principle for settling wrongs within the context of community.
My exploration of material on the subject of punishment and the handling of offensive behaviour has led me to some material on proportionality, retributivism, and utilitarianism, making use of that wonderful tool of modern technology, wikipedia. Proportionality is defined as requiring that the level of punishment be scaled relative to the severity of the offending behaviour. At the same time, this does not mean that the punishment has to be equivalent to the crime.
This is a principle which seems to get lost on those who would want us to fight crime and violence with the same measure and intensity as those committing offending behaviours. Thus, for those who support this position we can advance the cause of law and justice by lining up the violence advocated by Mr Adams against the violence of Cedric 'Doggie' Murray.
Far more useful to us, I believe, is an approach of philosophers of punishment who have contrasted retributivism with utilitarianism. The contrast as outlined by one researcher gets to the heart of some of the issues with which we wrestle in our approach to crime-fighting. "For utilitarians, punishment is forward-looking, justified by a purported ability to achieve future social benefits, such as crime reduction. For retributionists, punishment is backward-looking, and strictly for punishing crimes according to their severity". We may add to this assessment the fact that one expression of the utilitarian approach which is currently a part of our legal system in Jamaica is that of restorative justice.
I make no secret about the fact that I believe that the better way for this society in dealing with crime-fighting is that of the utilitarian approach and its forward-looking perspective. The Court will probably never have an investigation into the circumstances of the death of Cedric 'Doggie' Murray, and the din of the voices of those celebrating his death may be heard for a long time to come. And yet, I cannot but be struck by three things about the life of this young man.
The first of these was his love and devotion for Christopher 'Dudus' Coke, whom he was willing to call his "father". Is this life just a "crocodile" whom we should kill while still an egg, or is there here a life that was abandoned and which yearned for the love of a father who either abandoned or neglected this life while still an egg? And yet we are so proud to celebrate manhood by the bars and street corners of our society.
The second thing that strikes me about this young man is that he kept a diary. It has been my experience while functioning in the field of counselling and therapy that persons who keep diaries are among the most creative minds, who have a very deep emotional life, but whose public world is either too painful or restrictive for them to show this dimension of their life to others. Additionally, this young man could write, and wrote with sense and meaning so that even the casual reader can grasp something of the intensity and depth of his inner life.
Perhaps, if we would pause as a society, step back from the retributive attraction to crime-fighting, and nurture those eggs before they hatch, we may discover that they are not alligators and crocodiles, but human lives created by God and just waiting for the appropriate social environment to blossom and become creative and productive members of society.
-- Howard Gregory is the Suffragan Bishop of Montego Bay
Comment