Tweet
Procedure for investigation and prosecution must be reviewed
By Glen Tucker
(In a letter to the editor)
Our judicial system has borrowed heavily from the English legal system which has evolved slowly over many centuries. I can recognize two distinct divisions. The police, who investigate, collect evidence, make arrests and take suspected persons before the Court; and the court conducts a trial to determine guilt or innocence. I think the clear distinction between the role of the police and that of the court is to prevent too much centralization of power and the possibility of abuse and mistakes when one man is judge, jury and executioner.
For example, let’s say I am running a distant third in my efforts to gain the affection of a lady. Two men, one with more money and the other with more muscle are doing far better than I could ever do. I kill the one with more money and send a ‘tip’ to the police that the crime was committed by the one with muscles. ‘Acting on intelligence’, they kick down this man’s door and kill him. Or better still, I just pay them to kill both men. The public will hear that one attacked the police with a toothpick and the other did something similar with a toothbrush. We have been hearing such things for decades so no one will be surprised.
Recently there has been a sharp increase in the number of killings of citizens by police under questionable circumstances. The case of Andre Thomas in Grant’s Pen and subsequent behaviour of the cops involved had some talk show hosts very concerned. But it was in that same community more than a decade ago that Agana Barrett and 17 others – not wanted for any crime – were hauled away and stuffed into a cell. Their screams of agony were ignored by the Constant Spring Police. When they opened the door the following day, most who were able to drink their urine, were barely alive. Three were dead. There wasn’t a squeak out of the Grant’s Pen residents. Nor the rest of the country for that matter. Article 2 of The European Convention on Human Rights states: Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of sentence of a court following his conviction.
In Jordon v United Kingdom; Kelly and others v UK (2001), the families of men shot dead by the SAS in incidents between 1982 and 1992 were each awarded compensation by the Court.
It ruled that the authorities had failed to conduct a proper investigation into the circumstances of the persons killed in the fight against terrorism.
In Edwards v United Kingdom (2002) the UK was found to have violated Article 2 of the EU Convention on Human Rights through its failure to protect the life of a prisoner who was killed in his cell. Mass killings, like Braeton and Crawle were greeted, even by the middle class, with delight as, they claimed, the police were ‘getting rid of the criminals’. The attitude of the public, understandably confirms in the mind of the police that these extra judicial killings are OK with us and we are quite happy with allowing the police to use their discretion in these matters. But discretion invariably leads to arbitrary behaviour.
A.V. Dicey in ‘Introduction to the Study of Law and the Constitution’ (1885) suggested that one of three distinct elements which together create the Rule of Law was ‘an absence of arbitrary power on the part of the State’. F.A. Von Hayek in his book The Road to Serfdom, published 94 years later shared Dicey’s views on this matter.
Jamaica is arguably the most violent country in the world. You cannot put a young man from this environment in a police uniform, push a loaded gun in one hand, a baton in the other and a tear gas canister in his back pocket and send him out to solve a problem that is not a police problem, using a gun which can only aggravate the problem. This has serious implications for job satisfaction which, for the working adult, is almost as important as food. When job satisfaction proves illusive, mental health issues are not far behind.
The Jamaican police faces huge challenges. They are expected to use primitive techniques and technologies which policy makers must know cannot yield desired results. Their superiors, MPs and others with access to good information seem to be the only people in the country that do not know who are putting expensive weapons into the hands of poor, hungry, uneducated young men. When these persons are pressed by the media, they fall back on the old duppy story about ‘drugs’. And we accept it although we know better.
The reason advanced by most persons who should know better, for giving the thumbs up for extra legal killings is that witnesses, left to their own devices by the police, have been slaughtered or otherwise silenced.
If this sad chapter in this country’s history is to come to an end, several things will have to change. The government will have to change its attitude toward the police and the people. The people will have to change their attitude toward themselves and the police. The police will have to stop investigating the police. The policing of the police will have to be close and careful. Sanctions for any agent of the State guilty of abuse must be swift and certain.
Finally, we have some unique socio-cultural challenges, the answer to which will not be found in the US or the UK. May I suggest that – informed by our present realities – we review the rules of evidence and procedure that govern investigation and prosecution of crime to ensure that after the police have completed their work, cases can proceed to Court for what, hopefully, can be speedy trials.
By Glen Tucker
(In a letter to the editor)
Our judicial system has borrowed heavily from the English legal system which has evolved slowly over many centuries. I can recognize two distinct divisions. The police, who investigate, collect evidence, make arrests and take suspected persons before the Court; and the court conducts a trial to determine guilt or innocence. I think the clear distinction between the role of the police and that of the court is to prevent too much centralization of power and the possibility of abuse and mistakes when one man is judge, jury and executioner.
For example, let’s say I am running a distant third in my efforts to gain the affection of a lady. Two men, one with more money and the other with more muscle are doing far better than I could ever do. I kill the one with more money and send a ‘tip’ to the police that the crime was committed by the one with muscles. ‘Acting on intelligence’, they kick down this man’s door and kill him. Or better still, I just pay them to kill both men. The public will hear that one attacked the police with a toothpick and the other did something similar with a toothbrush. We have been hearing such things for decades so no one will be surprised.
Recently there has been a sharp increase in the number of killings of citizens by police under questionable circumstances. The case of Andre Thomas in Grant’s Pen and subsequent behaviour of the cops involved had some talk show hosts very concerned. But it was in that same community more than a decade ago that Agana Barrett and 17 others – not wanted for any crime – were hauled away and stuffed into a cell. Their screams of agony were ignored by the Constant Spring Police. When they opened the door the following day, most who were able to drink their urine, were barely alive. Three were dead. There wasn’t a squeak out of the Grant’s Pen residents. Nor the rest of the country for that matter. Article 2 of The European Convention on Human Rights states: Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of sentence of a court following his conviction.
In Jordon v United Kingdom; Kelly and others v UK (2001), the families of men shot dead by the SAS in incidents between 1982 and 1992 were each awarded compensation by the Court.
It ruled that the authorities had failed to conduct a proper investigation into the circumstances of the persons killed in the fight against terrorism.
In Edwards v United Kingdom (2002) the UK was found to have violated Article 2 of the EU Convention on Human Rights through its failure to protect the life of a prisoner who was killed in his cell. Mass killings, like Braeton and Crawle were greeted, even by the middle class, with delight as, they claimed, the police were ‘getting rid of the criminals’. The attitude of the public, understandably confirms in the mind of the police that these extra judicial killings are OK with us and we are quite happy with allowing the police to use their discretion in these matters. But discretion invariably leads to arbitrary behaviour.
A.V. Dicey in ‘Introduction to the Study of Law and the Constitution’ (1885) suggested that one of three distinct elements which together create the Rule of Law was ‘an absence of arbitrary power on the part of the State’. F.A. Von Hayek in his book The Road to Serfdom, published 94 years later shared Dicey’s views on this matter.
Jamaica is arguably the most violent country in the world. You cannot put a young man from this environment in a police uniform, push a loaded gun in one hand, a baton in the other and a tear gas canister in his back pocket and send him out to solve a problem that is not a police problem, using a gun which can only aggravate the problem. This has serious implications for job satisfaction which, for the working adult, is almost as important as food. When job satisfaction proves illusive, mental health issues are not far behind.
The Jamaican police faces huge challenges. They are expected to use primitive techniques and technologies which policy makers must know cannot yield desired results. Their superiors, MPs and others with access to good information seem to be the only people in the country that do not know who are putting expensive weapons into the hands of poor, hungry, uneducated young men. When these persons are pressed by the media, they fall back on the old duppy story about ‘drugs’. And we accept it although we know better.
The reason advanced by most persons who should know better, for giving the thumbs up for extra legal killings is that witnesses, left to their own devices by the police, have been slaughtered or otherwise silenced.
If this sad chapter in this country’s history is to come to an end, several things will have to change. The government will have to change its attitude toward the police and the people. The people will have to change their attitude toward themselves and the police. The police will have to stop investigating the police. The policing of the police will have to be close and careful. Sanctions for any agent of the State guilty of abuse must be swift and certain.
Finally, we have some unique socio-cultural challenges, the answer to which will not be found in the US or the UK. May I suggest that – informed by our present realities – we review the rules of evidence and procedure that govern investigation and prosecution of crime to ensure that after the police have completed their work, cases can proceed to Court for what, hopefully, can be speedy trials.
