WE have become so indifferent toward or critical of the activities of government over time, that we often find it easy to just ignore the activities and policies of the State. The result is that we run the risk of making good initiatives go by without taking notice or offering any expression of commendation. Our attention is usually only expressed with any degree of focus and energy when policies impact negatively on us in direct ways.

From as early as 2005, the Government of the day, through its legitimate spokespersons, indicated that negotiations were underway with a Jamaican-owned but United States-based company with a view toward the introduction of an electronic tracking system for individuals within the penal system. The state-of-the-art system being considered, we have been told, has been used in 46 US states and in parts of Europe to monitor the movements of persons on parole or bail, sex offenders, juvenile delinquents or abusive spouses considered a danger to their partners.

This initiative began when Major Richard Reese was the head of the Department of Correctional Services. At the time of disclosure, there were various advantages to the adoption of the system which were being advanced.

In a report carried in this newspaper, several of these were outlined for the public:

1) It would serve to reduce the current prison population which, at the time, was estimated to stand at 4,917, or 670 men and women above the ‘ideal population’.

2) It would involve the release of “low-risk” prisoners, that is, those who were in prison for non-violent crimes and who would then be able to be a part of the productive labour force of the country, while making restitution to the victims of their crime or performing public service.

3) While it was being proposed that the electronic system would be used initially to track persons on bail and on parole, it could also be used in monitoring persons on house arrest, delinquent juveniles who could be tracked from home to school; or paedophiles who could be excluded from proximity to schools. The importance of this is something which cannot be overestimated in our context within which persons on bail have frequently absconded, gone in search of witnesses to intimidate or kill them, or simply to perpetrate other crimes.

4) There is empirical evidence to indicate that in jurisdictions in which this system has been utilised, it has resulted in a decrease in the level of crimes committed.

5) The cost to maintain persons under the care of the Correctional Services would be significantly reduced. Current estimates for the daily maintenance of a prisoner within the penal system is US$22 per day, whereas the cost of monitoring someone using the electronic system is likely to be in the region of US$9-US$12 per day.

6) The reliability of the system is assured as well as its resistance to tampering by those to whom the system is affixed.

A recent release from the acting commissioner of the correctional services, Lt Col Sean Prendergast, indicates that the system has now been launched after several years of successful pilot testing, and will involve an initial cohort of five prisoners. It is true that this number is minuscule when compared with the overall population of the prison system.

It is quite understandable that when crime is at its current high level, citizens would be wary of any step which would seem to let off prisoners prematurely, releasing them back into civil society. Additionally, there are those extremists who would hardly entertain any steps that would appear to make life easier for prisoners, guided by a kind of judgmental attitude which suggests that offenders must be severely punished, even as they make no distinction between violent and non-violent prisoners. There are also those citizens who, once they hear the word ‘prisoner’, immediately conjure up the notion of a murderer, and to whom the spokespersons for this new initiative would need to have an educational thrust.

I believe that this initiative is one which should receive the endorsement of all Jamaicans as it not only represents an enlightened approach to an aspect of the criminal justice system, but it also represents a more responsible investment of the resources of the country. Figures released so far indicate that it costs the nation in the region of $800,000 per year to maintain each prisoner who is incarcerated. The proposed electronic system, when properly implemented, will see that figure reduced to a half, if not less.

When we consider that the savings of approximately $400,000 would pay the fees of at least two students at a university for a year, we must acknowledge the positive investment for the country in the development of our human resources. Bearing in mind the fact that the benefit to the country would not only be the saving accruing in this area, but the prisoner who is released and is now able to work will also be contributing to the productive enterprise within the country.

I am aware that there are also citizens who seem to believe that it is only the idle and unemployed who end up in prison. My own visits to penal institutions in Jamaica have provided me with the opportunity to meet graduates of high schools, tertiary institutions, and competent professionals who, for one reason or another, have lost their moral bearings.

There is, however, one area for caution in the implementation of this electronic system, and that has to do with the extent to which the operation of the same will be within the purview of the law and the protection of the rights of persons who have run afoul of the law or who are incarcerated. If the laws need to be changed to allow for the introduction of this system, then I have no problem with endorsing the same.

What I believe would need to be guaranteed is that where persons are not convicted of a crime, the courts should be the arbitrating body in determining whether this electronic device should be affixed to any individual, or there should be voluntary compliance on the part of someone alleged to have committed a crime. There is too much lack of trust in the police within the general population for a system with such potential to become the subject of controversy and suspicion concerning its application.

On the basis of disclosures made so far by the authorities, there is much to be commended in this initiative, and it is hoped that it will be extended to include a larger population with some amount of dispatch, even as it is being subjected to constant review.

Condemnation

Our people have had more than enough revelations of corruption within the political culture and system of governance since the beginning of this year, which have led to such a sense of mistrust and a sense of a loss of integrity within the realm of politics. Against this background, one would have thought that our political leaders would be more circumspect in their operations so that there would be no semblance of the perpetuation of this negative trend. Instead, we have now learnt in recent days of the corruption surrounding the operation of the Constituency Development Fund (CDF).

When the current Government made an announcement concerning the retention of this fund and the provision of allocations for each member of parliament, there were voices of objection stating that this was just another way of perpetuating pork barrel politics, which was being deliberately placed outside of the control of public monitoring and accountability.

The fund was stoutly defended by the Government and what has now turned out to be empty assurances were given that the integrity of the intention of the fund would be protected. For the current fiscal year, the sum of $1.2 billion was allocated to the CDF, with each parliamentarian being able to access up to $20 million for development projects in his or her constituency, at the parliamentarian’s discretion.

The responsibility for the monitoring of the projects funded by this source was to be that of Jamaica House which should guarantee accountability in the way in which the money was being expended.

Now it has come to light, through a parliamentary committee chaired by Mr Everald Warmington, that at least two parliamentarians have appointed members of their family as consultants to their constituency development fund allocation who are being paid in excess of $1 million as remuneration. A recent editorial in The Gleaner suggested that there are up to 16 constituencies in which this phenomenon is known to operate.

Note must be taken of the fact that the contractor general, Mr Greg Christie, has on previous occasions expressed his concern about the operation of this fund and the lack of accountability and the opportunity presented thereby for corruption.

It is clearly an unacceptable situation that parliamentarians who espouse the notion of ending corruption, and who seek to pass legislation to rein in the activities of private citizens dealing with public agencies and funds, should allow themselves this blatant avenue for the perpetuation of corruption, even as it is being excluded from the scrutiny of the contractor general, and given legal protection in so doing.

If this nation is serious about the evils of corruption and wants to end the practice, it must be willing to condemn every activity perpetuated in our political culture by our elected political officials, and stop glossing over these matters as “the way of politics” in our country. After all, elected officials are not above the law, neither are they elected to be exempted from the rule of law.

Double Standard

The Police High Command now finds itself in a defensive position in the face of public criticism of the seeming double standard in the way in which the case of the alleged killer of Khajeel Mais is being handled versus other cases involving less socially prominent individuals. While it would appear that the charge is being led by the journalistic community, the reality is that the public has heard on many occasions the use of euphemisms when certain prominent persons are not only suspects but charged with certain offences, such as “a prominent attorney has been charged”, “a prominent businessman from Upper St Andrew is now being sought by the police”.

In the case of those who seem to have no prominent social status, it seems that names are called from the time they are being sought in relation to a crime. I am prepared to grant that in the particular case which now occupies public attention, the Police High Command is being particularly careful in order to ensure a successful prosecution. At the same time, I would urge the high command to move from the defensive position and hear what is being said by the public concerning the operation of a double standard. It appears to me, as part of that public, that this is more than a matter of distorted perception.

Howard Gregory is the Suffragan Bishop of Montego Bay