PERSPECTIVES
CONSTRUCTING A CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM WITH MORAL AUHORITY
When it comes to talking about crime in the Caribbean, no one would argue that there is a nexus between crime and economic development; crime and investments are enemies to each other; white-collar crime and money laundering retard the growth of the financial services industry; migration and crime are good bedfellows; and then we have the Caribbean with its porous borders juxtaposed between the cocaine producers in the Andean region of South America and the cocaine consumers of the USA and Europe. All these factors tell us that the Caribbean is susceptible to crime that plays havoc with Caribbean economic development.

Well, this is how a World Bank report 2007 viewed crime as a hindrance to Caribbean development. And so, it is time that the Caribbean own up to the perennial tragedy that crime inflicts upon its development; instead of constantly ignoring the reality of the situation, a distinctive hallmark of any people unable to offer solutions to a problem.

Professor Paul Robinson of Northwestern University suggested that the never-ending degeneration into crime is not due to negligence; he argues that crime is happening, notwithstanding the finest efforts available to stop it.

I do not think that the Caribbean is experiencing any crime wave; and I do not think it has more crimes committed than in other regions; except, perhaps, for its murder rate, 30 per 100,000, higher than in any other part of the world.

Maybe, there is something not right about the Caribbean criminal justice system. But we must acknowledge the great attempts the Caribbean is making to stop crime. Anyway, despite these efforts, it would be an understatement to say that people are not concerned about crime.

Professor Paul Robinson of Northwestern University suggested that the never-ending degeneration into crime is not due to negligence; he argues that crime is happening, notwithstanding the finest efforts available to stop it.

Robinson posited that these best efforts are not producing the desired results; how so? He talked about the use of imprisonment and rehabilitation in the 1950s; the notion then was that criminals were diseased and needed treatment, thus, rehabilitation was in vogue. But sociologist Robert Marinson concluded that rehabilitation does not work, based on well over 200 studies with hundreds of thousands of individuals.

Then deterrence emerged as another hope to stop crime. The notion in this case was that threat of serious penalties would discourage offenders from committing crimes. Again, it is possible as a counter, that offenders believe that the threat of arrest and punishment affects other people, and not them.

Robinson showed that even if offenders express concern about the threat, what kind of threat would they eventually experience? Many offences are unreported; clearance rates (the extent to which police identify and arrest suspects) are declining; conviction rate is at low percentage levels; and the average prison time served is moribund.

How else then can we stop crime? Robinson suggests that “Moral authority, rather than rehabilitation or deterrence, may be the key ingredient in a criminal-justice system that can reduce violent crime. That authority has been deeply eroded by the system’s own rules and procedures…”

According to Robinson, the strategy to stop crime should be on not how we should deal with criminals, but more on why people comply with the law. The view that there are people out there who would not commit a crime, even when the enticement and opportunity exist, may be the way to go, in order to bring an end to crime.

Studies show that people obey the law because of the threat of punishment; because they fear disapproval from their group; and because they perceive themselves as moral beings and would like to do the right thing.

Sociologists Meier and Johnson noted that social disapproval had preeminence over legal sanction; and social psychologist Tyler found a high level of moral commitment to obeying the law.

But social disapproval and moral commitment could function only in the presence of a condition: that the potential offender and that offender’s group must view criminal law as a reliable source of what is moral. The extent, then, to which the law can attract people to comply, would rest on its moral authority and moral credibility. And moral credibility and moral authority mean the law’s reputation for punishing those who necessitate punishment within rules that are fair; protecting the innocent from punishment; and where there is justification for punishment.

The point Robinson is making is that we need a criminal justice system with moral authority and a society that condemns criminality; a criminal justice system that also engages terrorism and organized crime, both with global roots.