MUCH has been said in the media and on the portals of the social networking sites and BlackBerry Messenger about the progress and pace of the police investigation into the murder of young Khajeel Mais.

In the main, the comments have ranged from the uninformed, to the disruptive, to the insane. However, we believe that they represented mostly genuine attempts and good intentions by members of the public to aid the process of finding the murderer.

The shooting death of Mr Mais is frightening to say the least. It has also evoked the type of public response seen rarely in a country which has recorded over 1,000 murders per year for the last 10 years. We applaud this show of public concern and hope it will not be limited to this murder alone. Jamaicans are murdered daily, and despite the circumstances, we have to ensure that our voices of indignation are present to constantly remind the authorities that everything should be done to lift the awful stench of murders from our country.

We have, in the past, argued that murder is murder, no matter the situation and the place where it is committed. We are, however, very concerned about the seeming lack of scholarship evident in the comments of some who are criticising the work of, and methods employed by the police in their investigation of the Mais murder.

As far as we are concerned, the police have so far performed their investigative role in an admirable and judicious manner. They have, mainly through the voice of Assistant Commissioner Ealan Powell, kept the public abreast of the progress of the investigation.

Yet we are witnessing a public scalding of the police on the question of naming a person of interest. Commissioner of Police Owen Ellington, in his written response yesterday, has effectively dealt with that particular issue, certainly as it relates to the Mais investigation.

However, the impression we are getting from some commentators is that they are giving more credence to the criminals rather than paying attention to the victims of crime. Not for one minute are we suggesting that criticisms of the police be scuppered. On the contrary, we have to highlight their inefficiencies, the corruption which still exists in their ranks and the need to radically change their levels of customer service to meet the standards of present-day society.

We, however, strongly believe that there is a need to shift the direction of our radar systems and place them firmly on the victims of crime. They are the ones suffering; they are the ones feeling the pain; and they are the ones who have to live with the daily realities of murder. We must support them in a more robust manner or, at the very least, in the same manner some entities and professionals seemingly or unwittingly support the rights of criminals.

It is most instructive that in nearly all the interviews done by persons contesting the police decision not to name a person of interest, no one took the time to commiserate with the family of young Mr Mais.

We should bear in mind that policing, like all professions, requires training and experience. When they err and/or abuse their authority, we will not shirk from our duty to haul them over the coals. However, when they act professionally in the performance of their jobs we will not hesitate to commend them.