Free-for-all

“Money allocated to institutions should no longer be an excuse for crime mismanagement or judicial inefficiency,” Deosaran declared this week at a post-Budget event held by the Chamber of Industry and Commerce. He continued, “For too long the authorities have allowed lawlessness to spread, unfortunately for political vote-catching reasons. And that must stop – no more squatting, private for-hire cars. The Frankenstein’s monster is upon us.” Few will disagree with this diagnosis.

However, the issue is not whether Deosaran is right, but rather what should the country do about the situation facing us.

It must be the case that taxpayers are entitled to question how effectively our money is being spent.

For a second year, the top slice of the Budget has been allocated to matters relating to national security and to the Police Service.

These allocations are just a part of the picture. Crime has other costs not readily tracked. It impacts expenditure levels within the private sector and in homes, reducing disposable income of homeowners and victims. It results in physical and mental trauma.

And its effect on families and entire communities is devastating.

When sacred lives are killed, we suffer not only on a moral plane, but we also lose productive members of our society. There are other considerations such as medical expenses and the expense of repairing damaged infrastructure.

These costs underline the need for accountability.

There is no reason why this should not be the case equally in the Judiciary and the political realm. Deosaran is correct to say that the time for complaining about lack of resources has long past. The Judiciary has to address its inefficiencies such as the inordinate length of its trials, the breaks in some cases to facilitate vacations and unnecessary expenditure such as the bill for the recent opening of the Law Term.

At the same time, the Judiciary cannot be blamed for matters outside of its powers such as the slow pace of enactment of the abolition of preliminary inquiries. It is hoped new rules on the way will make things move faster. We wonder if there is now a constitutional argument for giving the Judiciary more power to effect the changes it needs. Human rights should trump bureaucracy.

We certainly think the fundamental purpose of any State is to ensure law and order so as to allow all to live in peace. This is clearly not happening with a murder toll approaching 400. But is it correct to say there is a crime free-for-all? While the number of incidents is too high, there are many untold successes that do not get attention.

We have little time for moments when the Police Service do good work addressing local issues or making breakthroughs that they cannot publish.

However, Deosaran has tapped into the perception of the ordinary man who does not want to quibble over statistics or hear things like serious crime is down.

Neither is relevant once a single person is killed.

The criminologist has targeted PH cars and squatters. Yet, while every single law is important, it is not productive to stretch resources over every single infraction.

Rather what is needed is more focus, more prioritisation.

So desperate is the population calling for relief that it is asking for a Rodrigo Duterte-style solution. As unacceptable as extra- judicial killings are, the ironic thing about Duterte, President of the Philippines, is that he says he is responding to the desire of his people. We need not descend to State-sanctioned barbarism, but we need action and we need it now.