We are sympathetic to those who have proffered the gun-for-projects idea that was recently floated as one solution to inner-city crime, but we must confess to being sceptical of the likely efficacy of any such plan.

It is indeed possible that any form of amnesty will encourage some people to turn in their weapons, but it is hardly conceivable that there will be the numbers to make any substantial, or even noticeable, difference to crime or the social environment within communities.

The fact is that those who have the right of ownership of guns, and therefore the capacity to turn them in, are not the individuals who will be looking to adapt to a sewing machine or endure the back-bending effort of laying tiles or concrete blocks.

The gun, after all, is an economic tool of another order. It connotes power and the right to expropriate.

Wealth, in such a circumstance, is not a process of accumulating by saving and investment of surplus. It is an instant process of relieving an individual of his or her valuables.

The use of the gun, therefore, may be a high-risk enterprise, but its potential rewards are high and bereft of the perceived drudgery of "work".

In any event, it is highly debatable that many of the persons who fire the guns are ultimately the ones who have the power of control and authority to give them up.

But even assuming there is a critical mass of persons who want to change their lives and to hand-in their guns in exchange for community economic projects, there are significant philosophic and legal issues to be worked through.

It seems quite likely that many of those who are now in possession of guns would have used them at some point - even to commit murder. This begs the question of what would be the status of the crime committed with that gun, for which the authorities would now have a prima facie suspect.

The issue the society would have to face is whether to turn its back on all past crimes once that weapon has been retrieved or whether the gun would be ballistically tested and its presenter questioned.

To do other than the latter would, on the face of it, compromise the notion of the rule of law and would seem to us to place the law enforcement agencies in an untenable position. For this would be asking the police not to solve, but to ignore crimes to which they might bring closure.

Moreover, there is also the issue of justice that would have to be tackled. For every crime committed with one of those exchanged guns there would have been a victim - many of them now bones in cemeteries across Jamaica. Would their families not be entitled to some form of justice and closure as part of this process?

Perhaps the gun-for-projects exchange or a general gun amnesty would have a dramatic effect, creating a veritable bazaar of weapons and former gunmen who have changed for the good.

But it would seem to us that if it is a process to be embarked upon, it should be carefully thought through so that it has a real opportunity for success and does not end as gimmick.

Critically, the process should be fashioned in such a way that the ideals of peace do not conflict with those of justice.
It is an issue that needs to be seriously talked through so that the society can emerge at a consensus. Soon!

The Audacity of Art

Marjorie Whylie to receive Stella Gregory Award

Traditional Thanksgiving offerings at EVITAS