City Security Strengthening Programme Survey and the need for caution

Jun 02, 2018 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
The findings of the above named survey are coming out by drips. First in the Chronicle of 29th and 30th May 2018 and then in the Kaieteur News of 31st May 2018. Nevertheless as a collective, these reports present us with findings that require careful attention if the true meaning is to be deduced. I will therefore comment on a few of these.
The Chronicle of 29th tells us that the survey found that 54.3 percent of prisoners surveyed did not complete secondary education and that 3.7 percent did not attend school at all. This seems to suggest a relationship between education and criminality.
Indeed, the survey went on to note that the absence of successfully completing formal education has been shown to be a major condition for later involvement in criminal activities, since education is linked to access to employment opportunity.
But there is something else that these figures on education might be suggesting. To help us uncover this new angle, we need to turn attention to what is carried in the Kaieteur News of 31st May 2018.
Kaieteur News tells us that ‘42.8 percent of inmates were arrested during the same day of their offence. And a further “23.3 percent were arrested between a day and a week after the crime for which they were charged.” This means that the suspects were quickly apprehended. Indeed, we are further told, many were caught in the act.
When we place this beside what Chronicle reported, we can assume that there is a relationship between level of education attained and early detection of the criminal. The less educated the criminal, the more likely he/she is to be caught. If we carry this reasoning to its logical conclusion, we would have to assume that the people in our prisons are not necessarily the representatives of our main criminal class, but instead of those most likely to be caught.
So, since it is among the poor that we are likely to find those who did not complete formal education, then it would be members of this group who will mostly populate our prisons and jails.
Further, when we recognize that because the educated and economically better-offs are better able to carefully plan and execute crimes, and can afford the best lawyers, we understand why members of this group are less likely to end-up in prison. In addition, we must remember that modern criminologists hold (as I noted in a previous letter), that most crimes are committed by the well-to-do and the wealthy.
Then there is the finding of the said survey recorded by the Chronicle, which addresses prisoners from single parent homes. Specifically, the period of time such prisoners lived with one or the other parent. It showed that the high number of prisoners lived with their fathers. This seems to suggest that one’s chances of becoming a criminal increases with the absence of mothers. But since the study is not clear whether in the case of the absence of mothers, living with fathers meant living with him alone or in the company of a mother figure (his partner at the time), one can hardly conclude what would be best for the child if and when parents separate. This is important to determine, since separations are fairly high in Guyana and the Caribbean.
Further, one of the things I learnt while on attachment at the Georgetown prison is that most prisoners define themselves to outsiders as being innocent. Or they tend to blame someone else for their turn to crime. They do this for one or two reasons: (a) to gain sympathy and (b) to make them (prisoners) feel good about themselves.
I would suggest that those who conducted this survey take a random sample of the participants and check with their friends and/or relatives on the accuracy of their description of their home situation when growing-up. It could be, for example, parents were far more present in their lives than they claimed.
Finally, we are informed that 4 out of 10 inmates indicated physical force by the police was used against them to compel them to change their statement. This is serious and could undermine all the findings, since in such a case ‘inmates’ would not equal criminals, and therefore conclusions reached in the survey about criminals would be undermined.
We are told that this Citizen Security Strengthening Programme Survey was conducted with the intention of informing “public officials on implementing adequate policies”. With its lack of clarity on so many issues, how will this be achieved? I know we are all anxious to get the criminal figures down. But I would suggest there is much more work to be done.
Let us learn from the experience of the USA, where during the late 1970s and 80s crime was high. The government, filled with anxiety and bombarded by a scared citizenry to do something, hastily took ill-informed action that led to the needless overcrowding of prisons.
We would be foolish in the 21st century to make a similar mistake. We must know, one of the realities of social research, is that very often research tends to give rise for the need of further research. This Citizen Security Strengthening Programme survey has in no way brought us to the point at which we can use its findings for “implementing adequate policies.”
Respectfully,
Claudius Prince

---

---