There has been questions pertaining to the integrity the Royal Bahamas Police Force (RBPF) for decades. There has been a call for action to restore and rebuild the relationship between the police and the average citizen for years, now we have hit a wall; but not the wall; where do we go from here?
“Rolle: RBPF will recover “– The Nassau Guardian
Excerpt from this article;
“Former Commissioner of Police Paul Rolle said last night that when he heard the allegations in a US indictment that members of the Royal Bahamas Police Force were involved in drug trafficking, his heart broke, but he expressed confidence that the RBPF will be able to rebuild its reputation and salvage its relationship with the Bahamian people.
Rolle, who is the Bahamas ambassador to the International Maritime Organization, said he was also “hurt and disappointed” with comments made by Commissioner of Police Clayton Fernander.
On Sunday, during a national address, Fernander said that in an effort to gain a comprehensive understanding of how these activities began and then remained undetected, “I have already initiated consultations with key individuals who held leadership roles during that period”.
“I have already spoken with former Commissioner of Police Paul Rolle, who served from March 2020 to July 2022,” Fernander said.
The commissioner said he also intends to speak with former Commissioner of Police Anthony Ferguson, former Prime Minister Dr. Hubert Minnis and former Minister of National Security Marvin Dames.”
Indeed, the Royal Bahamas Police Force (RBPF) will recover but will it regain the trust of The Bahamian people that has been seeing a constant a steady erosion for decades? Even after all of the “Neighborhood policing” initiatives, the trust in the police force continued to falter and it would seem that everyone saw it as being “okay”.
He people of The Bahamas need more than “lip service” from its elected officials.
In recent days, the tragic murders of a 12-year-old child and a 72-year-old elderly woman have left the nation shaken and on edge. These heinous crimes have reignited calls for the application of the death penalty as a means of justice and deterrence. This debate, deeply rooted in the fabric of many societies, raises critical questions about its effectiveness in curbing crime.
While proponents argue that capital punishment serves as a strong deterrent and delivers justice, opponents question its moral standing and practical impact. The following is a balanced synopsis of the pros and cons of the death penalty, focusing on its potential effectiveness in deterring crime.
The Death Penalty as a Deterrent to Crime: A Critical Analysis
The death penalty has long been a subject of heated debate, not only for its ethical implications but also for its effectiveness as a deterrent to heinous crimes such as murder. Proponents argue that the ultimate punishment of death serves as a powerful warning to potential offenders, creating a fear that prevents them from committing capital crimes. Critics, however, contend that the evidence supporting this claim is inconclusive and that the death penalty may not be as effective as intended. This blog explores the arguments for and against the death penalty’s deterrent effect and evaluates its role in modern criminal justice systems.
Theoretical Foundations of Deterrence:
The theory of deterrence is based on the idea that potential criminals will refrain from committing crimes if the punishment is severe, certain, and swift. The death penalty, being the most severe form of punishment, is intended to instill fear in individuals who might otherwise engage in violent behavior. The logic is straightforward: if the consequences of a crime are dire enough, rational offenders will avoid committing the offense.
Empirical Evidence: What Do Studies Say?
The effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent has been the subject of extensive research, with mixed results:
1. Studies Supporting Deterrence
Some studies suggest that states or countries with the death penalty experience lower rates of violent crimes compared to those without it. Researchers argue that the presence of capital punishment adds a psychological barrier, discouraging would-be offenders from crossing the line.
For instance, a 2003 study by economists at Emory University found that each execution in the United States may deter between three and eighteen murders. These findings indicate a correlation between the use of the death penalty and reduced murder rates, providing ammunition for proponents of capital punishment.
2. Studies Challenging Deterrence
Other research disputes these claims, suggesting that the death penalty does not have a significant impact on crime rates. A 2012 report by the National Research Council concluded that existing studies on the deterrent effect of the death penalty are fundamentally flawed and fail to provide credible evidence that executions reduce homicide rates.
Countries like Canada and several European nations, which have abolished the death penalty, do not report higher murder rates than countries that retain it. This raises questions about whether factors such as socioeconomic conditions, policing efficacy, and cultural attitudes play a more significant role in preventing crime than the threat of execution.
Psychological and Practical Challenges
1. Assumption of Rationality
The deterrent effect assumes that criminals are rational actors who weigh the consequences of their actions before committing a crime. However, many murders are crimes of passion, committed in the heat of the moment, where the perpetrator does not consider the potential punishment.
2. Certainty and Swiftness
For deterrence to be effective, punishment must not only be severe but also certain and swift. In reality, the death penalty is often neither. Lengthy appeals processes and the possibility of wrongful convictions undermine the certainty of execution, while delays in carrying out sentences diminish its swiftness.
3. The Issue of Wrongful Convictions
The irreversible nature of the death penalty raises concerns about executing innocent individuals. High-profile cases of exoneration due to DNA evidence demonstrate that even advanced judicial systems are not immune to error. This undermines public confidence in the death penalty and reduces its deterrent value.
Alternative Approaches to Crime Prevention
Rather than relying solely on the death penalty, many experts advocate for a multifaceted approach to crime prevention that addresses the root causes of violence. Strategies such as community policing, improved education and employment opportunities, mental health support, and restorative justice programs have shown promise in reducing crime rates without resorting to capital punishment.
Conclusion
The question of whether the death penalty serves as an effective deterrent to murder and other violent crimes remains unresolved. While some evidence suggests a potential deterrent effect, the overall findings are inconclusive and often counterbalanced by ethical, practical, and systemic concerns. In light of these complexities, it may be more productive to focus on addressing the underlying causes of crime and improving the fairness and efficiency of the criminal justice system. The ultimate goal should not merely be punishment but the creation of a safer and more just society for all.
“Senate president calls for resumption of hanging; PM says it’s not a solution” – The Nassau Guardian
Except from this article;
“Senate President Lashell Adderley yesterday called for the resumption of hanging in The Bahamas.
Her comments came after police reported that a 12-year-old girl was found dead with only a top on and a piece of cloth tied around her neck.
“We need to bring back hanging,” Adderley said.
“Unfortunately, the criminals do not fear the law. They are determined to take the risk to hurt people, hurt young children, and then they in turn laugh at the justice system.
“So we have to let them know that the justice system in the Commonwealth of The Bahamas is not a joke, and we are serious about justice and if that means bringing back hanging then that we must.”
Adderley said she believes that if you take a life your life deserves to be taken.
She asked, “Why should you be sitting up there, being fed by the state, relaxing for the rest of your life whereas the rest of us are out here working hard to support you?”
Prime Minister Philip Brave Davis said yesterday he’s looking for solutions to crime.
“When you start talking about hanging, that’s not a solution,” he said on the sidelines of a groundbreaking ceremony for the Centreville Hilltop Agri-Village.
“That’s after the fact. That’s after somebody would have died or been killed. I’m trying to prevent killing.
“Talking about what one has to exact after an offense has been committed, that’s not my focus right now.
“My focus is stopping offenses from being. It’s on prevention, not on punishment, at this time. Punishment has its place and yes, people should be punished and would be punished, according to law.”
But one second Mr. Prime Minister Davis capital punishment is law; I just thought that I would point this out, however, this then leads us to a complex dialogue concerning the application of capital punishment, which, as noted, is legally recognized yet bound by the Privy Council’s stipulations. These stipulations being that this form of punishment can only be used in instances of “the worst of the worst” and the “rarest of the rarest”; who actually defines these instances.
Many may seem very emotive concerning the recent killing of the twelve year old female and some are asking that these emotions be out aside as we seek to address capital punishment and murder; so let us do just that.
In my opinion the prime minister seems to be addressing this issue more like a defense attorney than a chief legislator, as he “talks down” Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Senate President Lashell Adderley; with this remarks reminding me of the script from the movie “Minority Report”, as he seeks to want to stop murders before they are committed.
It would appear that the prime minister is not concerned with the mitigation of crime through means of deterrence through enforcement but rather through means of “other means”; as to what these “other means” are, the rest of the country is very interested in finding out.
Earlier this week there was an instant where in it was made clear that the prime minister has no solution to our economic situation; and now he shows us that he nor any of this Cabinet or government has any solution to our crime problems – what does the prime minister and his government have a solution for?
The prime minister, while in opposition, heavily criticized the Free National Movement (FNM) government under the Hon. Hubert Ingraham for not having a solution to the crime situation, he went as far as to erect the infamous “Murder Boards”. This would have suggested that at the time that the indeed had a solution to our crime problem, it is clear today that he did and does not.
As we navigate these troubling discussions on crime and punishment, the key will be finding a balanced approach that ensures justice while also addressing the root causes of violence. It is imperative that our leaders listen, unify, and act thoughtfully, paving the way for a safer future that reflects the values and needs of all citizens.
The Progressive Liberal Party fails for one reason, it is their nature.
This latest admission by the Chairman of the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government regarding the government’s “war on crime” is very troubling to say the very least.
“Mitchell on crime: What more do you want govt. to do?” – The Tribune
Except from this article;
“AFTER Opposition members accused the government of lacking a sound plan to combat crime, Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell questioned what more they expect the government to do.
He was responding to St Barnabas MP Shanendon Cartwright, who lamented the country’s murder rate.
His comment came just hours before police recorded another murder yesterday, the second for the week and the country’s 91st for the year.
“We should all be ashamed, Madame Speaker, that we have not in any meaningful and adequate way addressed the issue of crime in a fundamental way,” Mr. Cartwright told Parliamentarians yesterday.
He acknowledged that a multi-layered approach involving all stakeholders is essential in the fight against crime, but argued that the government is not leading efficiently in this effort.
Mr. Mitchell pushed back, insisting the government is taking the matter seriously and that it was wrong for Mr. Cartwright to push a narrative suggesting otherwise.
“The evidence is there on all the social programmes that have been put in place since 2021,” Mr. Mitchell, highlighting the Urban Renewal programme, the government’s school breakfast programme and other initiatives, emphasising that these are long-term efforts aimed at positively impacting youth.
“I don’t want the public to be left with the impression that we think this is a joke,” he said.”
It would appear that the New Day government is conceding defeat in their “war on crime” and it would be a joke if it were not such a serious matter because the people of The Bahamas that elected them to office on promises of defeating crime cannot….CANNOT… afford for the government to simply give up.
The truth is this that the New Day government seems to have been enacting the every same social programs in their fight against crime as far back as the Christie administration, it was not effective then, so I am at a total lost as to why they would believe that it would be effective today?
What is the definition for insanity again?
But seriously, we the citizens simply cannot afford for the New Day government to claim “insanity” at this time.
The chairman of the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) speaks to stopping just short of imposing draconian measures to combat crime and while we do not need overtly harsh measures, we do need the government to impose more harsh strategies to fight crime, even if it means losing the next general election; this is called country over politics.
The odd thing here is this, that imposing the laws already on the books consistently and evenly would be considered ‘overtly harsh” today simply because the average citizen no longer appreciates nor respects the persons that enforce laws on our streets.
The Royal Bahamas Police Force (RBPF) is partly the fault for this and there needs to be a consistent move toward our officers regaining the respect lost; while simultaneously imposing our laws on a consistent basis.
While I truly appreciate that maintaining law and order in a rapidly growing county as The Bahamas especially on the island of New Providence is a difficult task; we cannot no have a government; any government, even seeming to concede defeat.
The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason, it is their nature.
My Morning Paper 