Convenient blame game?

THE EDITOR: Is Erla Harewood-Christopher or any other police commissioner single-handedly responsible for keeping crime down? How many murders, armed robberies and sexual crimes had taken place over the 20-year period under various commissioners before Harewood-Christopher’s leadership?

Do intentional murderers seek a law degree before they go on to commit their heinous crimes? Are people charged with murder more legally proficient than the prosecution and our court adjudicators?

How do these illiterate individuals, in many instances, put on such a robust legal defence after being charged for the most horrific offences, and even with all our theoretically clear-cut laws still eventually escape stipulated sentences after lengthy trials?

In our justice system, when a matter goes to court, who or what is truly in charge? The prosecution, the defence, the court’s adjudicator or our written laws? And since our written laws cannot verbally express themselves in court, does the possibility of the manipulation of it exist in our justice system?

Does selecting a particular police commissioner have any political advantage or disadvantage?

Have those opposing the present commissioner’s extension period authentically pondered on the non-stop increase in crime statistics we’ve had over the last two decades under all police commissioners?

Yes, we all should be concerned about our present crime situation, but do criminals not only outnumber but also outwit the combined intelligence of law-abiding citizens, the police service, our legal system and those lawmakers in our hallowed Parliament?

If we are really serious-minded about our ever-increasing crime situation, shouldn’t those in our court of law (adjudicators, prosecution and defence attorneys, especially the latter) be more conscious about the way they handle criminal matters and the evident legal flexibility they may be exposing to recognised criminals, thus giving them some degree of assurance should there be any future matters against them? Besides the criminals, does anyone gain anything from this high crime rate?

Have we, particularly those in our justice system, totally lost all humanistic feelings? Don’t we at least sometimes feel even a tiny degree of human compassion for the relatives of kidnapped and/or murdered children, parents, young men and women, the elderly, hard-working dedicated business people and police officers?

Even after the imperfect terms of rated commissioners, do we still believe there’s this single person, an impeccable police commissioner, who would drastically cut our crime rate? Doesn’t today’s crime-fighting require a comprehensive co-operative effort? By blaming any police commissioner and by extension the police service for the crime rate, aren’t we actually telling the criminals it’s okay to commit crime so long as you are not caught?

I believe there are people on both sides of our parliamentary system (the ruling party and the opposition), the literal makers and amenders of our laws, who know exactly what is required to bring down this dreadful crime rate, but for whatever reason/s are not prepared to take affirmative action.

With artificial intelligence (AI) practically overtaking various humanoid assignments, if applied, would it bring impartial justice in our legal system? But then, who programmes AI?

LLOYD RAGOO

Chaguanas