We need a criminal justice system with moral authority

Dear Editor,
I refer to Mr Michael Maxwell’s letter of April 25, 2009 in the Stabroek News, with the caption ‘How can Dr Misir blame crime on the public while absolving the government?’

First of all, my letter was not titled ‘Sunday Stabroek editorial was full of “flimsy elements and misconceptions”’ but instead ‘Stabroek News true to form again.’ The editor applied the privilege of securing a title to suit his/her own interests.

Mr Maxwell has completely misinterpreted my letter.  I believe that not merely government but all citizens in the country have a responsibility to ensure that crime does not happen; for instance, police work is only as effective as the level of cooperation it receives from citizens.  Crime is everybody’s business.

And the criminal justice system has responsibility for enforcing criminal laws through agencies that include legislatures, police, courts, and corrections; and the criminal justice system has four components: police, prosecution, courts, and corrections.

People are very concerned about the upsurge in crime in any society, and quite rightly so. Some people have blamed governments for being unable to cope with criminality. Some have criticized the Guyana Police Force likewise. Some premature critics also assert that the police need to eliminate crimes, and deter crimes. But the police are not equipped to deter or prevent crimes region-wide; research literature on crime prevention by the police in Guyana is practically non-existent. Behavioural and social scientists are needed to answer the many questions on what the police can do to prevent crime.

Many of these strategic answers are still to come. So in the meantime, we have to understand the limitations of a ‘crime prevention’ role for the police, created by this data void. Right now, the best function the police can have and are performing is to solve localized incidents of crime, but we cannot expect them to play an aggressive region-wide ‘crime-prevention’ role for narco-trafficking, gun-running, etc.

A US commission report noted that the police did not initiate crime and may be unable to end the convulsive changes in society. The police do not produce the laws that they must enforce, and they do not dispose of the criminals arrested. Apportioning blame laced with political contours is not the way forward in any efforts aimed at stamping out criminal activities. And the people making these erroneous remarks are themselves bankrupt in terms of pragmatic suggestions for improving the crime situation.

A government may have a high responsibility in fighting crime, but the cooperation of citizens is necessary.

Mr Maxwell admits that he lacks understanding of the institutionalizing of moral belief and moral credibility in the criminal justice system in Guyana.

Well, let’s see what we can do here. Professor Paul Robinson of Northwestern University suggested that the never-ending degeneration into crime is not due to negligence; he argues that crime is happening, notwithstanding the finest efforts available to stop it.

Robinson posited that these best efforts are not producing the desired results; how so? He talked about the use of imprisonment and rehabilitation in the 1950s; the notion then was that criminals were diseased and needed treatment, thus, rehabilitation was in vogue.

Then deterrence emerged as another hope to stop crime. The notion in this case was that threat of serious penalties would discourage offenders from committing crimes. Again, it is possible as a counter, that offenders believe that the threat of arrest and punishment affects other people, and not them.

Robinson showed that even if offenders express concern about the threat, what kind of threat would they eventually experience? Many offences are unreported; clearance rates are declining; the conviction rate is at low percentage levels; and the average prison time served is moribund.

How else then can we stop crime? Robinson suggests that “Moral authority, rather than rehabilitation or deterrence, may be the key ingredient in a criminal-justice system that can reduce violent crime. That authority has been deeply eroded by the system’s own rules and procedures…”

According to Robinson, the strategy to stop crime should be on not how we should deal with criminals, but more on why people comply with the law. The view that there are people out there who would not commit a crime, even when the enticement and opportunity exist, may be the way to go, in order to bring an end to crime.

Generally, studies show that people obey the law because of the threat of punishment; because they fear disapproval from their group; and because they perceive themselves as moral beings and would like to do the right thing.

Sociologists Meier and Johnson noted that social disapproval had preeminence over legal sanction; and social psychologist Tyler found a high level of moral commitment to obeying the law. In effect, people comply with the law because of their need to secure approval from their group, and their moral obligation to obey the law.

But social disapproval from a person’s group and moral commitment could function only in the presence of a condition: that the potential offender and that offender’s group must view criminal law as a reliable source of what is moral. The extent, then, to which the law can attract people to comply, would rest on its moral authority and moral credibility. And moral credibility and moral authority mean the law’s reputation for punishing those who necessitate punishment within rules that are fair; protecting the innocent from punishment; and where there is justification for punishment.

The point Robinson is making is that we need a criminal justice system with moral authority and a society that condemns criminality; a criminal justice system that also engages terrorism and organized crime, both with global roots.

Yours faithfully,
Prem Misir