Tweet
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=TopStory>Crime: the essence of the matter</SPAN>
<SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Geof Brown
Friday, February 16, 2007
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=80 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>Geof Brown</SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>This column is not given to serialising a topic. Yet this is the third week in a row that the subject of crime is the topic. Last week's "Crime: Not so simple, Kevin O'Brien Chang" brought a number of interesting responses pro and con as well as a short, sharp contradiction of a statement of mine as being "untrue" by K O'Brien Chang himself in a letter to the editor. One or two misguided readers interpreted the column last week as opening journalistic war with my fellow columnist. It is rather sad that some find what they hope to find whether or not what they seek is there. Such persons failed to notice that this column actually gave KO'B credit for a well-thought out article with good data, while at the same time disagreeing in part with his reliance on father-absence as the main explanatory root cause of crime in Jamaica, especially murderous crime. I happen to take the word "root" seriously.<P class=StoryText align=justify>However, several readers felt, and I agree, that the last column opened up a possible debate and thus merits a follow-up piece. The problem of limited column space for a columnist on the editorial page is part of the problem of not giving more due extended attention to a serious topic. But it is good to see even in his contradicting response that K O'B welcomed the piece last week as a contribution to democratic debate in a free press. Now to the matter of my part disagreement with Chang's thesis about father-absence from families being the root cause of our high crime (especially murder) rate. My opposing conclusion is that a crisis in values is the real "root" cause of crime. But that is only as long as we understand that there are many other causal factors associated with the "root".<P class=StoryText align=justify>Let's put it simply. Every time we behave in certain ways, we are doing so based on our value system. These values came to us from our parents, our schooling, our church, our peers (all termed agents of "socialisation") as well as from our self-education through reading, watching TV, imitating role models and so on. A criminal who commits murder is like the rest of us, acting on his value system. The absence of a father may have contributed to the poor value system, but that is by no means necessarily the only or the chief determinant of his criminal behaviour. We see children with two caring parents develop into murderous criminals, while we also see children with mother alone as socialising agent develop into model citizens.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Indeed, one of my readers in strongly disagreeing with Chang's position wrote that she brought up her two children perfectly well without the presence or help of a father. Some mothers go so far as to suggest that the absence of an undesirable father is a blessing. The thing to understand is that even with a father always present in the home, other influences can and often do, cancel the good example set for the offspring. One of the chief such influences these days is that of drug addiction often brought about by peer influence.
Allied to this is the strong temptation to get rich quick by dealing in drugs. As young men (especially) develop strong reliance on drugs to get rich quick, they fall into gangs of other young men with similar intent. Then other gangs also form and the opposing gangs fight one another for a bigger piece of the pie or for greater access to the spoils of their marauding life sty
<SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Geof Brown
Friday, February 16, 2007
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=80 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>Geof Brown</SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>This column is not given to serialising a topic. Yet this is the third week in a row that the subject of crime is the topic. Last week's "Crime: Not so simple, Kevin O'Brien Chang" brought a number of interesting responses pro and con as well as a short, sharp contradiction of a statement of mine as being "untrue" by K O'Brien Chang himself in a letter to the editor. One or two misguided readers interpreted the column last week as opening journalistic war with my fellow columnist. It is rather sad that some find what they hope to find whether or not what they seek is there. Such persons failed to notice that this column actually gave KO'B credit for a well-thought out article with good data, while at the same time disagreeing in part with his reliance on father-absence as the main explanatory root cause of crime in Jamaica, especially murderous crime. I happen to take the word "root" seriously.<P class=StoryText align=justify>However, several readers felt, and I agree, that the last column opened up a possible debate and thus merits a follow-up piece. The problem of limited column space for a columnist on the editorial page is part of the problem of not giving more due extended attention to a serious topic. But it is good to see even in his contradicting response that K O'B welcomed the piece last week as a contribution to democratic debate in a free press. Now to the matter of my part disagreement with Chang's thesis about father-absence from families being the root cause of our high crime (especially murder) rate. My opposing conclusion is that a crisis in values is the real "root" cause of crime. But that is only as long as we understand that there are many other causal factors associated with the "root".<P class=StoryText align=justify>Let's put it simply. Every time we behave in certain ways, we are doing so based on our value system. These values came to us from our parents, our schooling, our church, our peers (all termed agents of "socialisation") as well as from our self-education through reading, watching TV, imitating role models and so on. A criminal who commits murder is like the rest of us, acting on his value system. The absence of a father may have contributed to the poor value system, but that is by no means necessarily the only or the chief determinant of his criminal behaviour. We see children with two caring parents develop into murderous criminals, while we also see children with mother alone as socialising agent develop into model citizens.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Indeed, one of my readers in strongly disagreeing with Chang's position wrote that she brought up her two children perfectly well without the presence or help of a father. Some mothers go so far as to suggest that the absence of an undesirable father is a blessing. The thing to understand is that even with a father always present in the home, other influences can and often do, cancel the good example set for the offspring. One of the chief such influences these days is that of drug addiction often brought about by peer influence. Allied to this is the strong temptation to get rich quick by dealing in drugs. As young men (especially) develop strong reliance on drugs to get rich quick, they fall into gangs of other young men with similar intent. Then other gangs also form and the opposing gangs fight one another for a bigger piece of the pie or for greater access to the spoils of their marauding life sty