Dear Editor,
On April 11 the Kaieteur News carried figures for some specific crimes. These figures for January to March 2011 were juxtaposed against those for January to March 2012. We were told there had been “an overall decrease of eight per cent in serious crime” during the period under review. However, the statistics went on to reveal there had been a “14% rise in armed robberies” and a “34% rise in armed robberies where instruments other than firearms were used by the perpetrators.”
First, we need to remember that the percentage rise only speaks to occurrences reported to or observed by the police and recorded. In criminology there is this theory of the ‘dark figure of crime,’ which holds that a significant number of crimes go unreported and/or unrecorded. Thus the police record is not a reliable guide of the level of crime in a country. Where Guyana is concerned, many Guyanese have little confidence in the police force, and therefore when robbed, many would not waste their time to report the crime. Another good example is spousal abuse. We have women who are beaten by their partners reporting the abuse to the police, but when later checks are made there is no record of the crime. This happens simply because the officer who received the report, advised the victim to “go home and mek it up with yuh man.” Indeed in the Stabroek News of April 22 we read that Ms Karen DeSouza in her presentation at a workshop at St Stanislaus College informed the gathering that “getting the police to take a rape report is a challenge.” Acceptance of the ‘dark figure of crime’ theory would mean the percentage rise offered by the police for armed robbery cited above is significantly below the true percentage.
Secondly, I think it is important to note that white collar crime is not mentioned in the list of “serious crimes.” In fact the vast majority of the crimes listed as “serious crimes,” are crimes we tend to associate with members of the urban poor as perpetrators. This is interesting, especially when we recognize that most Guyanese think that the level of white collar crime is extremely high here and that internationally it is accepted that white collar crime, more than any other type of crime, damages a country most, both morally and economically. As I noted in a previous letter generally street crimes undertaken by the poor, can to a large extent, be solved by making it possible for all adult Guyanese to be able achieve a decent income. After all, the poor person who steals is usually a person who has internalized the society’s value of a successful person – he who has a nice home, a car, can make his/her children comfortable and can afford a holiday to a foreign land at least once per year. He/she (the poor criminal) is well socialized in the values of the society. His only problem is he lacks access to the socially approved means – education, well-paid jobs – for getting these socially approved goals, thus he steals. As the criminologist Bernard Headley puts it, “People gainfully and productively employed within stable communities are, in the long run, the best guarantee a society has against crime and criminality.”
It is however the white collar criminal who serves us with the greatest challenge. Generally the white collar criminal is a person who occupies a high social position, is powerful, rich or well to do. That with all of this he still steals means he suffers from some psychological illness and thus serves society with a greater problem than does the street criminal.
When the Ministry of Home Affairs is criticized for not doing enough to fight crime, Minister Rohee almost always remind critics and the nation, of the millions that the government spends in retooling the police – purchase of vehicles, weapons, communications equipment, etc. Let us remember that our priorities, whether as individuals or as a nation, are reflected in the things we spend money on. Thus Minister Rohee; and by extension the government he serves see the major strategy for fighting crime as ever increasing the ability of the police for coercive action. We all will agree that there will be criminals who need to be locked away in the interest of society. Similarly, there is no argument against improving the force’s capacity for coercive action. However, I fear that an ever increasing amount of resources spent on this strategy will not lead to any substantial reduction in crimes like armed or unarmed robberies if indeed poor people commit armed robbery in an effort to gain resources as I argue above.
Editor, it is our lack of imagination, the absence of a desire to do things differently that is most disturbing about our approach to fighting crime. In the USA, there seem to be an understanding of the relationship between the lack of “resources” and the poor’s involvement in crime. It is held that the drug trade emanating in Mexico, can be traced to the fact that the poor Mexican cash crop farmers, living close to the USA border, were having problems getting their products to the cities and still be able to make a decent profit. So it was easy to encourage them to change to coca cultivation. Seeing little reduction in this trade, even though the Americans have spared no resources in a coercive response, intellectuals are now encouraging a change in strategy. Today the authorities in the USA are being encouraged to consider helping the farmers on the Mexican side of the border, to return to growing cash crops, by guaranteeing markets for their crops in US communities close to the border. The point I am making is that we have examples of people turning to unorthodox and progressive methods for fighting crime and not merely relying on incarceration and the execution of citizens who have transgressed the law as their main strategy.
Over reliance on the coercive approach for disposing of persons who have broken the law is wasteful of human potential. I think we find this approach appealing for three main reasons, (1) jailing offenders gratifies our anger; (2) we feel a sense of safety with the criminal locked away; and (3) we do not give enough thought to the cost of this chosen response to crime. Rarely do we see in a comprehensive sense, how it robs us as a nation from the totality of our possibilities as a people. Money has alternative uses. The coercive approach for disposing of certain criminal acts demands that more courts and prisons be constructed, thus limiting how much we, as a people, can spend on helping vulnerable groups, creating and up keeping playfields, libraries, art galleries etc. Over-spending and reliance on the coercive approach demands that too many of our brightest minds be trained for work in the legal profession – as magistrates, judges and lawyers as against being used in the search for solutions that would bring relief from illnesses that plague our people or create things of beauty that are pleasing to the soul and broaden the mind, for example, writing books, etc.
It has not eluded me that the government has introduced preventative and rehabilitative programmes in the fight against crime, to which it directs relatively paltry sums. An example is the NOC, which seeks to offer young offenders a second chance, thus limiting recidivism. There is also the Citizens Security Programme which is a preventative programme. However, I fear these two programmes in their present form will not succeed.
Yours faithfully,
Claudius Prince
