Who or what is the cause of crime?

In the twilight of his years, when he should be enjoying a quiet domesticity, Jamaat al Muslimeen member Lance Small will instead spend the next ten years in an American jail. But this is no less than he deserves. The evidence which convicted 70-year-old Small at a Fort Lauderdale court adds credence to the Jamaat’s reputation as a criminal enterprise, in which Small was a key player. There is, of course, no doubt that the Jamaat’s leader Yasin Abu Bakr and his cohorts who took part in the attempted coup did perpetrate criminal acts against the State. The question is whether, in the aftermath of being freed on a technicality, the Jamaat started — or continued — more common criminal activities such as drug-smuggling, gun-running, extortion, and kidnapping.

Independent Senator Dana Seetahal, speaking in the Senate last Tuesday, argued that the organisation was a key cause of the country’s high crime levels. Dismissing the Police Reform Bills as a solution to crime, Ms Seetahal said, “If we are looking for the source of a lot of crime in this country, it’s that organisation.” This may or may not be so. What is incontestable, however, is that Abu Bakr and the Jamaat have been allowed to win a measure of influence among poor and dispossessed youth which, even if the Jamaat is not directly involved in crime, has certainly helped create a lowered respect for the forces of law and order in this country. And part of the blame for that must be laid at the feet of PNM leader Patrick Manning and UNC leader Basdeo Panday, neither of whom has ever trenchantly condemned the coup attempt nor unequivocally distanced themselves from Bakr.

At the same time, crime in this country has reached a stage where, even if every Jamaat member were locked up tomorrow, the murders and kidnappings and robberies would probably continue unabated. As Ms Seetahal pointed out, the Government needs to tackle crime by dealing with the problem of gangs. And, indeed, this seems to be the core of much of the violent crime now plaguing our society. This battle must take place on two fronts. One front is already being tackled — using the nation’s security forces to patrol and contain the hotspots where the cycle of murder and revenge seems never-ending. That strategy, however, has so far yielded little dividends. The other front requires an intelligence approach — the authorities must find out what these gangs are fighting over.

It is easy to dismiss the young men who are killing one another daily as indifferent psychopaths. But violence usually has some rationale behind it, difficult as it may for those with more secure and comfortable lives to comprehend. The likelihood is that these gangs are fighting over specific resources. It may be access to drug suppliers or it may be over URP monies. But until the authorities find out exactly what is the case, strong-arm tactics can provide only a limited solution (and they aren’t even doing that). So the authorities need to do a rigorous analysis of the situation in those communities where gangs rule the streets. And this should not be an impossible mission — after all, the Prime Minister already knows who the “community leaders” are.