The Maharaj crime plan

Maharaj called for greater detection of murder and advised that the Commissioner of Police be allocated a dedicated team of properly vetted detectives who would work on solving murders with the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the US and Scotland Yard in the UK.

Such a recommendation is to be welcomed because the question of prevention ultimately rests with the issue of deterrence. If people are not held accountable for their actions and if society does not see the perpetrators being put to justice, then no amount of legal reform will dissuade killers.

While the Police Service and the Ministry of National Security have been allocated billions in resources, it is clear that the system of criminal justice has been overwhelmed since the mid-2000s. The detectives have not been able to keep up, the officers have not been able to keep up and the courts have been swamped.

Legislative reform such as the abolition of the preliminary inquiry and a new option to elect to trial by judge could work with certain safeguards in place. But it will all be to no avail unless the police are able to solve the crimes and to place people under charge. The FBI and Scotland Yard have the capacity.

Perhaps this is one issue that can be raised by Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley in talks with US President Donald Trump.

However, one caveat must be expressed. Any form of outside assistance should focus on being sustainable. It must build capacity and not just be a flash-in-the-pan intervention. It must also be a serious exercise and not one for people seeking the sun and the sea and rich relocation/risk stipends. Some of the other proposals are also worthy of consideration. However, on the issue of hanging, we note perhaps the time has come for a reopening of the debate on whether capital punishment should be on our law books.

The issue is contentious, contrary to the impression given in some arenas.

It is a human rights issue, not just a legal one. Can the State morally justify killing a human being as a punishment for killing another human being? The law of the land is clear. It allows the death penalty in theory in certain cases. That law, however, equally allows certain safeguards that have meant there has been no hanging in practice. When both the administrations of Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley and his predecessor Kamla Persad-Bissessar say “hanging is the law”, they effectively say nothing.

For the same law that authorises hanging also prevents it by enshrining certain legal procedures and the authority of certain case law.

If the State adopts the narrow view that hanging is to be implemented, it must however be emphasised that such a move should only come after substantial reforms are implemented.

Once a life is taken it cannot be brought back.

There is widespread suspicion that there is corruption within the criminal justice system, that actors can be tainted, that people can be wrongly accused. If the State wants to take up the power to kill people, it had better make sure it has rooted out bad-apple police officers, enshrined more transparent judicial disciplinary procedures and bolstered the appeals process.

The Police Service is adamant that part of the problem it is encountering is the lack of people coming forward to give information. But in this climate of endless bloodshed and violence, reaching the innermost recesses of our homes, who can blame witnesses for being fearful? Some outside help might be a useful remedy.