IN the wake of the upsurge in violent crimes, the Prime Minister has said several times his information is the increase in murders is gang-related, apparently spiralling as a result of gang warfare. He has actually suggested the average citizen is not now anymore at risk, despite the unprecedented criminal activity. Even if this were so, it is cold comfort to the relatives of the Princes Town proprietor who was killed a few days ago during the course of a robbery. It also offers little assurance to the kidnap victims and the members of the business community who feel targeted.
The phenomenon of gang-related crimes is nothing new. It was for instance prevalent in the 1930s in the United States and seems to surface in areas where there is heavy urbanisation. In fact, a wealth of studies have been done in the US on the emergence of gangs and the subculture of gangs, which has a hierarchy that parallels that of regular society. The prevalence of gangs is seen as an indicator of organised crime, a term referring to crime that is planned and committed by gangs, hence the term “organised”. In the early days it was rooted in illegal activity such as large-scale robberies, breakins and prostitution. This has now been over-taken to a large extent by drug trafficking.
It is no surprise, therefore, to hear of “gang wars,” a battle for turf when one gang believes the other is trying to elbow in on its area or sphere of activity. In Jamaica the growth in gang activity has been paralleled by an increase in murders. From a figure of under 100 in the late 1960s, murders spiralled to 1,000 in 1997, in a population of 2.6 million. Two weeks ago the Jamaican murder total went past that number for this year.
In T&T, with 1.25 million, we saw 106 recorded murders in 1996. Since then, the number has catapulted, so with no corresponding increase in population in 2001 we had a record number of murders of 148. We have already broken the record for the year so that at December 19, we have 159 reports of murders. Are they primarily gang-related? How do we know?
One way of determining this is by the number of homicides committed with guns, in the hands of persons not known to be licensed to bear arms. We are told of the 154 murders reported up to last week, 90 were committed with firearms. That itself indicates these incidents did not fall within the realm of domestic disputes or ordinary fights (where guns are not usu-ally used). Another indicator that murders are gang-related is the percentage of “cleared up” crimes, the detection rate. When murders are committed by strangers whether in the course of a robbery or gang execution, the detection rate drops, for obvious reasons.
It may well be, then, in T&T there is a growth in gang activity that has resulted in the increase in murders. But is this any basis for complacency? Is the average person to feel safe knowing this? We are told the bulk of the murders occurred between Port-of-Spain and Arima, with Laventille/Morvant emerging as the most fatal areas. It appears soon we might be facing a situation as in Jamaica, where 80 per cent of the murders occur in the inner cities. Does this fact make the people of Kingston “the murder capital of the Caribbean” sleep any safer? I think not.
First of all, even if we accept most murders are gang-related, is this true about the rest of crimes: robberies, rape and kidnappings? Is it not likely the increase in gang activity has spawned an overall in-crease in crime? We thus can-not afford to be self-righteous and dismiss the increase in murders as simply resulting from increased gang activity. Underestimating the impact of gangs on a national level can be costly, as Jamaica has found out as their “killing fields” continue to spawn hardened criminals.
As tempting as it might be to cocoon ourselves and say, “let the gangs kill each other”, we cannot afford to do so. They never do and in their stead will emerge a breed of new, more callous criminals who have nothing but contempt for the law and order they might perceive abandoned them. Such the confines their “ghettoes”, but will certainly venture out to seek prey. Furthermore, if we seem to he abandoning any segments of society to the criminal elements, that will set a dangerous precedent as it will convey to them they have won: the police and the. Government can-not control them. This will further empower the criminal elements that will then grow in strength.
Having regard to the above, no alliances between our protective services and any criminal elements, even in the “war against crime”, must be contemplated. This is a contradiction in itself, just as any discussions between our elected officials and the Jamaat about dealing with the crime situation must be laughable —for obvious reasons. Just as ridiculous is talk of the Jamaat presiding over a truce of 500 gang leaders to end Laventille killings. A couple of months ago it was a truce to end the kidnappings — as if any of the real criminals would ever implicitly admit his involvement by signing a truce in the full glare of the media.
We have a serious crime situation and we must look to our protective services to come up with solutions for immediate relief while long term policies are put in place. Meanwhile, we must not resort to flirting with criminal elements merely because things look bad. As Jamaican politicians have found out: when you lie down with dogs you get fleas.
Columns by Dana Seetahal S.C. 