Let’s not be overly reliant on a state of emergency
CRIME has featured in most public opinion surveys over the last 25 years as Jamaica’s most serious challenge.
It is a shame that for a country that has done so well on the global platform in areas such as sport, academics, and entertainment, one of the things that has stained Jamaica is crime, in particular, the number of people who have been murdered by their own each year.
When an island of around 2.8 million inhabitants can kill more than 1,000 of their number, on average, annually, it speaks to a massive problem of how civil we are with our fellow men.
The reintroduction of the state of emergency in the western parishes of St James, Hanover, and Westmoreland, last week by Prime Minister Andrew Holness must come as comforting news to those in the western killing fields. But it cannot be good for Jamaica, having to resort to this measure in a bid to keep the lid on criminal activity.
The state of emergency will last for 14 days, although I’m sure the Opposition People’s National Party will support its extension in Parliament when the matter comes up for a two-third approval in two weeks.
With a state of emergency, there are restrictions. And there will be police/army excesses. Movement of individuals will be limited in some instances. One of the negatives is the effect that the declaration of a state of emergency can have on Jamaica’s main money earning industry — tourism. One travel advisory by the United States Government, for example, can mean a downturn in revenues.
The Jamaica Constabulary
Force must look ahead of the band aid approach of a state of emergency. Obviously, the apparatus is not in place to deal with crime in the way it ought to be handled. That has to be addressed before anything else can be done.