Jurassic practice in identifying suspects

THE EDITOR: Businesses are now recording significant decreases in sales which proprietors blame on the conversion of citizens to introverts with serious crime-related phobias. This revelation comes despite reports of an additional one thousand police officers to the service and a new anti-crime strategy that appears to have procured “tangible” arrests. However, trends suggest that quick bail postings and brief incarcerations are frustrating punitive efforts. Early on the new crime-fighting agenda must be migration to more modern and effective concepts in lieu of archaic mentalities and procedures that are now dogmatic and loquacious. Quite recently, witnesses to a “hold up” were asked to identify the robber at a police station. They were expected to do this with complete disregard for their right of anonymity, patented by being in the same room as the line up of possible suspects. Witnesses were called one at a time and asked to state their names within hearing distance of the suspects.

Most were told to point out the perpetrator while at least one witness was required to state both his name and address then invited to actually touch the criminal to secure a positive identification. So that the entire process was incongruous not to mention asinine and downright dangerous to the citizens who were willing to come forward in the name of justice. Surely, most folks would be horrified to learn that this Jurassic practice still exists today. Needless to say that the transgressor went free since no one relishes falling prey to bullets in the dark — to be a statistic. You will agree that if he was identified and arraigned as a result, safety concerns would loom over that brave witness once the accused was bailed out, as is often the case. Does it take a rocket scientist to deduce why decent folks seldom come forward with information and provide evidence to solve crimes? Another opportunity for improvement within the police service lies in the empowerment of all officers — an analogy based on the fact that workers who perceive their input as important to their employer, conform to model employees. Affording cops a “say” in policy making or policy change will breed and solidify loyalty and wellbeing within the ranks of the service. One way to achieve this is by implementing an “Ideas Programme.”

This initiative will invite any employee within the police service to contrive ideas or proposals geared at improvements to systems, procedures, processes, comfort levels, tactical manoeuvres — whatever. Officers will submit their ideas to a specially established Ideas Committee, which will conduct evaluations in the context of practicality, cost and overall benefit/s, thus informing the decision to adopt, defer or reject any idea. Once an idea is adopted and implemented, a suitable award must be given to the relevant officer in recognition of his or her achievement. In any event, officers must be advised of the committee’s decision regarding their idea. Suffice to say, this incentive promotes a “win-win-win” situation — an improved police service nurtured by capable cops that translates to a safer TT. It should be noted that the Ideas Programme is being strongly proposed by virtue of its success in other institutions and because trends do not suggest of its existence, let alone its enforcement, within the police service. Sadly, too much time has been already wasted — too many have dragged their feet for too long. Mr Chin Lee and Mr Snaggs, now is the time to multi-task and implement.

DEXTER J RIGSBY
Mt Lambert