Tweet
Crime reduction: necessary but insufficient solutions
Geof Brown
Friday, August 10, 2007
In reviewing the JLP's manifesto in last week's column, I commended the JLP leader Bruce Golding for noting that crime cannot be magically reduced. And I noted that the current minister of national security Peter Phillips would undoubtedly endorse Mr Golding's observation. My review of the manifesto also suggested that the commendable focus on increasing the strength of the police force, especially its investigative capacity, did not go far enough.
For it seemed there was more emphasis on intervention after the fact than on prevention and rehabilitation. One of the responses from readers inquired in a rhetorical manner whether it was not sufficient that the growth of the economy with concomitant expansion of employment would effectively reduce crime. My response in part was if that solution was sufficient, then the USA would have one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
What the reader meant was that the promise of the JLP manifesto to improve the economy and thereby expand employment, would ipso facto reduce crime to tolerable levels (my words). The other part of my response was to compare the extremely low crime rate of Botswana, one of the best run and wealthiest countries in the developing world, with that of the USA, one of the wealthiest countries in the developed world. I pointed out that the USA has perhaps more of its citizens per capita in prison than any other country in the developed world. In other words, wealth and high employment do not guarantee low crime rates. The example of Botswana was chosen not only because I represent that country here, but because of the tremendous ignorance about this African country which (according to the Economist) rivals the economic growth rate of booming China.
The reader is to be forgiven for indulging the common fallacy that there are simple and easily applied remedies for crime. That is the fallacy which feeds the mistaken assumption that governments and their policies and actions directly account for the rise or fall of crime rates. Mr Golding has shown that he is not a victim of this kind of simplistic thinking. Minister Phillips, from my vantage point as one who has studied criminology and worked professionally in three countries (Canada, USA and Jamaica), has done a rather good job within the ambit of his resources and the time at his disposal.
The 20+ per cent reduction in murders and higher in some other crimes over the past couple of years attest to that. Golding no doubt realises that if and when his party should form the government, they might be hard put to do a great deal better. Therefore, he is apparently not about to raise unrealistic expectations from those who might think he will be the one to wave the magic wand. The reduction of crime depends on the three-pronged attack of prevention, containment (apprehension and punishment) and rehabilitation, as this column has repeatedly pointed out.
A rigorous test of sound thinking is whether an explanation of a phenomenon is necessarily true, but is at the same time insufficient. It is a common failing to look for quick and easy explanatory answers to all problems, no matter how complex they may be. So even the three-pronged attack mentioned above, although true, is insufficient to explain how best to reduce crime. The context might be important. For instance, local community volunteers are of great value in apprehension of say, gunmen. But a government (any government) cannot compel or successfully legislate their cooperation. If citizens do not trust or accept the moral authority of such a government or are abused by state agencies, the cooperation might not be forthcoming. Any prevention or containment measures initiated by such a government will hardly succeed.
Thus, it is increasingly clear that governments need wide cooperation from the citizenry as well as from the private sector and various civic institutions for prevention, containment and rehabilitation. Yet the expected results will take time.There is no magic wand. This is not to suggest that governments do not have the prime responsibility for crime reduction and therefore must be the lead players in the struggle against crime. They can meet the challenge head-on, such as Mayor Giuliani's city government accomplished in New York with its successful zero-tolerance policy. That took care of the containment aspect.
Without prevention, however, new recruits to the criminal ranks continually take the place of those who are removed through containment measures. And without rehabilitation, those who are convicted and incarcerated simply go through the revolving doors of the prisons and return to a life of crime - the only life they know. That explains why so often we see repeat offenders with long histories of previous convictions.
Let us therefore maintain an informed perspective as we are tempted to believe that if not this government, then another government will quickly sweep crime away.
Mr Golding in his declaration will have done himself and his party a favour if they should become the government. He can fall back on his statement. But I bet that within months, if not weeks there may be those, despite his caution, who may be clamouring for an overnight success in reducing crime drastically. Ask Minister Peter Phillips. When he was appointed with great expectations, I wrote that he had been given a basket to carry water. That is the nature of the beast.
browngeof@hotmail.com
Geof Brown
Friday, August 10, 2007
In reviewing the JLP's manifesto in last week's column, I commended the JLP leader Bruce Golding for noting that crime cannot be magically reduced. And I noted that the current minister of national security Peter Phillips would undoubtedly endorse Mr Golding's observation. My review of the manifesto also suggested that the commendable focus on increasing the strength of the police force, especially its investigative capacity, did not go far enough.
For it seemed there was more emphasis on intervention after the fact than on prevention and rehabilitation. One of the responses from readers inquired in a rhetorical manner whether it was not sufficient that the growth of the economy with concomitant expansion of employment would effectively reduce crime. My response in part was if that solution was sufficient, then the USA would have one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
What the reader meant was that the promise of the JLP manifesto to improve the economy and thereby expand employment, would ipso facto reduce crime to tolerable levels (my words). The other part of my response was to compare the extremely low crime rate of Botswana, one of the best run and wealthiest countries in the developing world, with that of the USA, one of the wealthiest countries in the developed world. I pointed out that the USA has perhaps more of its citizens per capita in prison than any other country in the developed world. In other words, wealth and high employment do not guarantee low crime rates. The example of Botswana was chosen not only because I represent that country here, but because of the tremendous ignorance about this African country which (according to the Economist) rivals the economic growth rate of booming China.
The reader is to be forgiven for indulging the common fallacy that there are simple and easily applied remedies for crime. That is the fallacy which feeds the mistaken assumption that governments and their policies and actions directly account for the rise or fall of crime rates. Mr Golding has shown that he is not a victim of this kind of simplistic thinking. Minister Phillips, from my vantage point as one who has studied criminology and worked professionally in three countries (Canada, USA and Jamaica), has done a rather good job within the ambit of his resources and the time at his disposal.
The 20+ per cent reduction in murders and higher in some other crimes over the past couple of years attest to that. Golding no doubt realises that if and when his party should form the government, they might be hard put to do a great deal better. Therefore, he is apparently not about to raise unrealistic expectations from those who might think he will be the one to wave the magic wand. The reduction of crime depends on the three-pronged attack of prevention, containment (apprehension and punishment) and rehabilitation, as this column has repeatedly pointed out.
A rigorous test of sound thinking is whether an explanation of a phenomenon is necessarily true, but is at the same time insufficient. It is a common failing to look for quick and easy explanatory answers to all problems, no matter how complex they may be. So even the three-pronged attack mentioned above, although true, is insufficient to explain how best to reduce crime. The context might be important. For instance, local community volunteers are of great value in apprehension of say, gunmen. But a government (any government) cannot compel or successfully legislate their cooperation. If citizens do not trust or accept the moral authority of such a government or are abused by state agencies, the cooperation might not be forthcoming. Any prevention or containment measures initiated by such a government will hardly succeed.
Thus, it is increasingly clear that governments need wide cooperation from the citizenry as well as from the private sector and various civic institutions for prevention, containment and rehabilitation. Yet the expected results will take time.There is no magic wand. This is not to suggest that governments do not have the prime responsibility for crime reduction and therefore must be the lead players in the struggle against crime. They can meet the challenge head-on, such as Mayor Giuliani's city government accomplished in New York with its successful zero-tolerance policy. That took care of the containment aspect.
Without prevention, however, new recruits to the criminal ranks continually take the place of those who are removed through containment measures. And without rehabilitation, those who are convicted and incarcerated simply go through the revolving doors of the prisons and return to a life of crime - the only life they know. That explains why so often we see repeat offenders with long histories of previous convictions.
Let us therefore maintain an informed perspective as we are tempted to believe that if not this government, then another government will quickly sweep crime away.
Mr Golding in his declaration will have done himself and his party a favour if they should become the government. He can fall back on his statement. But I bet that within months, if not weeks there may be those, despite his caution, who may be clamouring for an overnight success in reducing crime drastically. Ask Minister Peter Phillips. When he was appointed with great expectations, I wrote that he had been given a basket to carry water. That is the nature of the beast.
browngeof@hotmail.com