DOMESTIC homicide has always been a significant contributor to Jamaica’s national homicide rate. It has become a lesser percentile of the whole figure because of the increase of gang-on-gang violence, or as I like to call it, “idiots killing idiots”.

This, however, does not mean the figure has necessarily reduced. If we look at our population 15 years ago and look at the number of domestic homicides for that given year and establish a rate per 100,000 people, now the figures are quite comparable.

So we have been killing our women at a constant rate for the last couple of decades. Yes, our women! Domestic violence, other than when Mrs Lynch sharpened her ‘lass’, is largely directed towards women.

So motivated by the disturbing murder committed recently by a member of the correctional services, I have started to ask myself some questions. Firstly, why is it that men in our country have the inclination to kill their women? Is our rate of homicidal conduct in keeping with other countries in our region? Are the homicides preventable? Is our current intervention strategy working? Can it be improved?

Well, in providing the answer to the first question, I humbly blame culture. Not inner-city culture, or gang culture, just the culture of the Jamaican male. We as males appear to accept some level of violence, depending on our level of provocation. Think about this. How many times in discussions about female promiscuity has the conversation led to a proclamation of “inna my yard?”, “nah, mi wuda kill it”, or “mi would gi her a proper box”, etc.

Once you accept that there is a possibility of violent conduct, then it is simply a matter of what the stimuli that motivates said conduct is. This is an across-the-board phenomenon.

Meeks and Berry lived uptown. They also killed their women. This differs from the murders that occur in the inner-city that are motivated by gang conflicts and low IQs. These were educated men, who never knew the sting of squatter housing, sub-standard schooling, squalor, or donship victimisation.

So, why did they kill? Or, as a group, why do we kill?

Some say provocation, but I rubbish that claim. There is no woman even half as provoking as Jamaica’s taxi men. So, if you are prone to violent conduct, then your first crime would not be violence towards your spouse, it would be violence directed at a taxi man or a windshield wiping thug.

Are we misogynists? I’d like to think not. And if so, we would be attacking women who are not our own. So, the issue lies with the psychological belief that because a woman is intimate with us, we somehow own her and have the right to use violence to discipline, punish, or exercise some degree of physical sanction that sits right with our moral and spiritual values.

Law enforcement responses to domestic violence has significantly improved in recent years, where the police do act on the reports, but we could do better with the intervention strategies, I think we could do more. Also the current marketing drive against this type of violence is quite creative and will bear some fruit.

I think we should start to use shaming, rather than trying to prick the conscience of the abusers.

Words like ‘cowardly’ need to be used more. These mongrels are beating persons half their size. Words like ‘selfish’ are also applicable, because their acts impact their own children, sometimes to the point of making them orphans.

I think the Firearm Licensing Authority needs to be more involved as well. Once someone feels threatened by a spouse, that person should be able to complain directly to the authorities, who should temporarily take custody of any weapon whilst conducting their investigation. If it is found that violence is a possibility, then the privilege of owning a gun is withdrawn. If not, it is returned.

It may seem drastic, but what occurred to the spouse of the penal officer in the presence of her 12-year-old daughter was horrible and to prevent a recurrence requires drastic action. This maniac, like others before him, killed with a registered weapon. He had been processed and found to be of an even temperament. This is a failure of this process.

You cannot tell me that this was the first occurrence of violent conduct by this man against this woman. It never starts with a killing, it starts with a ‘box’, a threat, a shove.

There also need to be changes in the legislation relating to the need for the victimised woman to be a complainant in a domestic abuse matter. In the USA a woman does not have to get involved as a complainant. The state can bring the case without her. It simply is too big a problem to rely on one member of a family to step up to give evidence against another. It also is impractical.

I may seem angry, but what I actually am is ashamed. These murders are being committed by persons who, under normal circumstances, would qualify as friends, peers, or fellow citizens. They are not gang members, who I would take joy to see in a cage or under a truck. They are essentially me, my brother, the future husband of my daughter, or my colleague.

The murderer in the Andrade saga had children at the same school that mine attended. My father and Berry were friends. These horrors are being carried out by my father’s generation, and now mine. What moral standing can I have to direct my son when my father’s generation and mine are capable of this level of cruelty to our own loved ones?

It takes drastic and unreasonable measures to prevent one more child from begging for the life of her mother, like that 12-year-old did last week.

It is time to do something, and at this moment I’m willing to try anything.

Jason McKay is a criminologist. Feedback: jasonamckay@gmail.com