Fighting crime and learning from the mistakes of others

Jul 19, 2015 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Speaking to the NAACP on 15th July 2015 President Bill Clinton made a remarkable admission to the people of the United States. He acknowledged that when he signed into law mandatory minimum sentencing for a range of offences he was wrong. His recognition of this fact comes in the wake of the acceptance by scholars that the present chaos in the American criminal justice system has its origin in the signing into law of this very mandatory minimum sentencing.
In the late 1970s and through the 1980s there was a frightening growth in crimes associated with the use of and trafficking of illegal hard drugs in the USA – murders, robberies, assault etc. A fearful populace cried out for relief and demanded the criminal justice system get “tough on crime.” In response to this pressure the police began to harass the ghettos of America. Poor people who were known or suspected of using or selling illegal drugs were arrested and charged, sometimes these charges were trumped up. During the said period, citizens were critical of the courts, accusing them of not handing down harsh enough punishment to offenders. When President Clinton came to power he sought to give support to this public demand for harsher penalties and mandatory minimum sentencing for a number of crimes became a reality. Mandatory sentencing limits judges ability to use their discretion where and when they feel it would be appropriate in the performance of their duties.
With tough mandatory minimum sentencing, offenders began to be imprisoned for long periods for committing petty crimes and this led to over – crowding of prisons. Also, since blacks and other minorities are the ones overwhelmingly living in the ghettoes, it was these groups that most suffered by the implementation of this new mandatory minimum sentencing policy. Further we need to be reminded that the vast majority of imprisoned persons will be set free at some time, and prisons are not the best institution for preparing inmates for life outside of prison. In prison independence is not encouraged. Inmates are told where to go, when to go, when to sleep, when to eat etc. Today successful living in the open society demands that persons be confident and independent. It is this very inability of life in prison to prepare inmates for independent living that is often used to explain the high level of recidivism.
The actions of the police coupled with the pressure placed on the courts to hand down harsh sentences (which really translates – longer periods of incarceration) resulted in pressure being placed on   correctional agencies. Over time as the courts behavior began to take effect the cost of running prisons began to escalate and became a burden on the resources of both state and federal governments. Effective correctional programs could not be funded adequately and even catering for the housing needs of an expanding prison population became problematic. Some states like Texas for example, found it necessary to resort to erecting tents in prison compounds for housing prisoners. In reference to that period and what Texas learnt, the present Governor of the state – Rick Perry said on Morning Joe on 16th July 2015, that Texas learnt  being tough on crime must be balanced with “being smart on crime.” He then proceeded to speak of actions Texas took in the form of using alternative sentences (non-custodial) for those guilty of committing non-violent crimes.
In Guyana some holding to the “get tough on crime approach” as tried in the USA and which led to minorities being discriminated against and the overcrowding of correctional agencies, suggest building more prisons as a solution. However the experience in the USA has shown that once you build them they will be filled. Also building new prisons and staffing same demands tremendous resources. Americans were not prepared to finance prisons at the expense of neglecting to refurbish roads, maintaining parks and playfields or possibly cut out school lunch.  It is for having created this mess by way of mandatory minimum sentencing legislation that moved President Clinton to admit he made a mistake.
Correcting and bringing order to the justice system will take thought and time. Recently President Obama pardoned 46 non-violent criminals who were in prison for some time. In Guyana I am told, President Granger also recently commuting the sentences of   around 40 young offenders who similarly committed non-violent crimes. These acts of the two presidents must be seen for what they really are – attempts to bring some initial relief to a dysfunctional criminal justice system.
So, it would seem that we in Guyana should choose to learn from the experiences of the USA as we craft our response to crime in the country. If we choose to do this then the USA, in its fight against crime, offers Guyana the following understanding;
a)    While getting tough (which really translates into a demand for longer periods of incarceration) on crime might satisfy our anger and reduce our fears for a while, it does not solve our crime problem.
b)    Getting tough on crime tends to lead to discrimination against poor communities and individuals
c)     Getting tough with crime often creates stress and greater problems in the criminal justice system.
As it relates to point (c) beyond the challenges discussed above that the approach leads to in the justice system, there are also some other negatives that are useful for us to consider. For example it is often overlooked that the “get tough on crime” approach often gives rise to a tense relationship between the three agencies of the justice system. We like to talk about a suspect being innocent until proven guilty. However, this position is not true for all the agencies comprising the criminal justice system.  The police do not arrest and charge people because they think they are innocent. The only agency that makes real this valued assumption of innocence until proven guilty is the courts. So when persons the police build cases against are set free or given light sentences the police see the courts as not supporting their efforts. On the other hand, judges are overburdened by the unmanageable amount of cases brought before them for adjudication. Judges wonder why the police do not use their discretionary powers to ensure that some of the more trivial matters are dealt with without appeal to over-burdened courts. The correctional agencies (jails and prisons) wonder what ‘the hell’ the courts are doing by sending more criminals to their overcrowded and understaffed facilities.
So in Guyana we need to harness our fears and control our anger, however justified these might be. Every day I read the various newspaper in Guyana I note the comments by office holders and letter writers expressing their concern about the crime situation in Guyana and offering   remedies. While this concern is healthy, nearly all of these contributors focus on what the police are doing or not doing as the remedy, as if police action alone can bring about significant reduction in crime in a sustained manner over a long period. It is the behavior or lack of same, of every agency comprising the justice system coupled with other social realities that are really the main contributing factors. But even as I say this I am aware that in Europe there have been those thinkers who suggest that there is a relationship between the level of crime and the weather, noting that crime seems to be highest during the warm season.
Fighting crime is a process and there are numerous and varying reasons why persons commit crimes, this is suggested by the fact that both the poor and the rich commit crimes.  In Guyana based upon evidence continuing to be uncovered, it seems, as a percentage of their number in the society, the rich commit more crimes than the poor. So crime control will demand action on many fronts other than actions taken by the criminal justice system. All of us who want to make a contribution towards its reduction have the prerogative to choose which contributing factor/s we want to address. But as we do this let our contribution not merely be influenced by emotions but by an understanding of what might best work, based upon our study of what has been tried by others confronted with a similar challenge.
Claudius Prince

---

---