Beyond crisis point

Some have regarded the occurrence of five murders as nothing to be concerned about. They are wrong, and that is why we do not apologise for returning to the issue of violent crime, particularly murders, in our country.

No country should sit easy when five murders are recorded in ten hours. We should particularly be concerned with the brazen nature of the killings. A couple was shot while asleep in the privacy of their home. Demons, relatives said, must have been responsible.

Demons in human form. This type of home invasion seems to be running rampant. Motives range from robbery to pure malice.

Meanwhile the presiding officers of both Houses of Parliament have repeatedly declined to clear the way for a debate on crime. It is for those officers to come to that decision and to interpret the rules.

But the possibility of a never-ending tide of violence cannot be far from anyone’s mind. One debate may not be enough, and MPs may well fear opening a Pandora’s box.

But the last thing the population wants now is more talk about crime. We want results.

It would be far more productive if the Government and the Opposition were to come together to hold institutionalised discussions on solutions and to enact them.

A whole-of-government approach is needed, in the sense of crossing departments as well as party lines.

All must come up with a plan of action. The emphasis should be on outcomes, not sabre-rattling. We need well-devised interventions.

For a start there needs to be better regulation of guns and cars, as a recent spate of drive-by shootings demonstrates. Why are weapons so freely available and why have they not been properly tracked? These are some of the issues relating to the execution of crimes.

Other efforts can be devised to frustrate criminals such as the effective use of information once gathered by the State’s security apparatus.

Surveillance alone is not enough.

There is also the question of deterrence.

If the crime cannot be prevented, the punishment should still be effective. This is the other side of the equation. It is currently woefully inadequate. More needs to be done to empower the police to solve crimes and to prosecute them soundly in the court. The court system, too, needs to become fairer to all concerned and more efficient.

The nation is fed up of saying the time has come for action. Indeed, the time for action was long ago.

None of this is to take away from genuine achievements when they do happen: and they do, as recent high-profile arrests demonstrate.

But that is little comfort to the family and friends of people murdered while in their sleep; or on the way to school; or sitting in a car in traffic.

Citizens must play a role. If you see something, say something: report it.

Which is why the police must do a better job of earning trust.

The Police Service is to be commended for swiftly removing one high-profile police officer from the position of co-host of a daily crime programme. His continued presence – on an anti-crime show of all things! – would have sent the wrong signal. The matter is before the court. But lessons must be learned from this incident.

Television is a useful medium in crime-fighting. However, such shows must never serve to inadvertently glamorise crime. Nor must they undermine confidence in the police. We need confidence now more than ever.