Think outside (crime) box

THE EDITOR: Following debate in the Upper House, one would believe that some of the Members do not live in T&T and appreciate the seriousness of the state of crime in our land.

It is time to start thinking out of the box and suggest solutions instead of grandstanding as a defender of the constitution as is being done in the Senate all the while Rome burns.

I have a few simple questions for those who oppose stringent measures which would deny bail for a very lengthy period in certain limited circumstances.

* What is someone, outside of the military, doing with assault weapons in this country?

* When someone is allegedly held with such weapons, why should they automatically obtain bail if evidence presented by the police at the bail hearing is convincing?

* Where is the balance between the safety of the public and the denial of bail?

One could argue that the Magistrates have been a major part of the problem for many years and this obtains at present, so maybe the solution is for bail hearings to be transferred to a judge in chambers for such offences and the police mandated within a period of 30 days to present compelling evidence to the judge at a bail hearing.

The accused can be imprisoned in a minimum security detention centre during the 30 day period. Surely a coming together of all sides to address these serious issues is the common sense approach to achieving easy passage of necessary good/strong legislation. Just my 2 cents.

Richard Trestrail

Via e-mail