Editorial | Better enforcement rather than more gun laws

We appreciate the sentiment behind the Government's intention, as announced by Prime Minister Andrew Holness last week, to amend the Firearms Act to expand the range of offences and, hopefully, deter firearm offences. There is little doubt that the plan will be hugely popular, as such ideas usually are.

Yet, this newspaper questions whether, at this time, this is the best use of administration's resources, parliamentary time and the energies of the constabulary, which will be called upon to enforce the extended law.

Of course, illegal guns pose a major problem for Jamaica. The police recover several hundred each year, but the inflows continue, the bulk via America. When it comes to outgoing contraband, America's porous borders are made more gaping by their court's ludicrous interpretation of, and Congress' effete attitude towards, the Second Amendment of the US constitution that gives every citizen the right to bear arms. That has, in practice, also meant it is easy to acquire guns in America and, usually, for their owners to do what they will with them.

Of the more than 1,600 homicides in Jamaica last year, nearly 80 per cent of them were committed with guns. Mr Holness is understandably riled.

"It is wholly unacceptable that so many lives are being lost to persons with illegal firearms," he told Parliament during the Budget Debate. "... This administration is resolved to treat this problem with the seriousness it deserves."

So, the laws are to be amended, the prime minister says, to better define the various illicit activities within the illegal firearm trade. This newspaper would settle for better enforcement of the existing laws, including arresting and prosecuting people who commit firearm offences, including murders.

For example, each year, the police 'clear up' around 40 per cent of all the murders that takes place in Jamaica. Put another way, 60 per cent of the homicides are not 'cleared-up'.

FEW CONVICTIONS

Moreover, the idea of a murder being cleared up is liberal in the extreme. It doesn't mean that the case has really been solved, but rather that the police have determined a suspect, which might be some amorphous gang or someone shot and killed in a confrontation with cops who was believed to be involved in killings. Very few cases actually reach the courts, and of those that are actually prosecuted, only a handful result in convictions.

In other words, the laws, or more correctly, the inadequacy of their enforcement, don't provide deterrence to criminals, who can behave with impunity.

That is why expanding the range of gun offences may not, at this time, be the right approach to a serious problem. We would like to see the police really solving crimes, in particular murders - bringing the perpetrators to justice. If more people were being caught, prosecuted and convicted for gun crimes, that would be the better deterrent. Maybe the concentration should be on improving the skills of the police on this front.