ZOSO concerns legitimate

THE EDITOR, Sir:

Jamaica's latest crime-fighting initiative, the establishment of zones of special operations (ZOSO) in certain communities, seems to have public support. Yet some human-rights groups are worried, especially as ZOSOs are extended. One concern is the use of the military to fight crime.

These concerns are legitimate. Involving soldiers in crime-fighting is problematic and rarely turns out well. Actions that are effectively states of emergencies, even if restricted and involving social measures to mitigate impact, tend to become oppressive.

A liberal democracy such as Jamaica's needs to be on guard whenever rights of citizens, even of those regarded as undesirables, are restricted in the name of combating crime.

Not just human-rights groups, but the public needs to ask questions and ensure that these questions are answered. Is the dignity of persons being violated? Are the measures taken necessary or are they an overreach?

Will these measures make citizens in ZOSO communities and Jamaica, more generally, safer in the long run? Do these measures pass a constitutional test and can they stand up to judicial review? Do they conform to international norms and treaties to which Jamaica is a party?

We understand the country's impatience to rid itself of violent crime. So it should, for lives are lost and diminished. But it is easy to combat an evil by committing an even greater one, which makes matters worse. A citizenry needs to be on guard that this doesn't happen. ZOSO should, at best, be a special measure for a restricted period. Otherwise, it becomes a violation of rights.

ERON HENRY

Alexandria, Virginia

USA