Defence attorney Mr Peter Champagnie has raised an issue that we believe has long needed serious examination and, indeed, action, as it has been a depressing reality in Jamaica for many years.

We have always felt that a large contributor to the sustenance of crime, including murders, has been the shield that criminals receive from their relatives, people in their neighbourhoods and other communities, as well as individuals who have money to fund illegal activities.

Intermittently, attention is drawn to the fact that many of the scum engaged in crime are armed with weapons that they, given their economic circumstances, are unable to afford, therefore, those firearms and ammunition are provided by people with means to acquire them.

Last Friday Mr Champagnie weighed in on the debate sparked by the prime minister’s statement in Parliament last week that the Government will be tabling legislation to impose minimum 30-year prison sentences for murder convicts.

Mr Champagnie argued in a letter to the editor of this newspaper that, while the prime minister’s statement has caused consternation among some members of the bar, the position is “not unreasonable”, given the annual murder toll in the country.

Mr Champagnie spoke the truth when he stated that the people “who commit heinous crimes, such as murder, are not discriminatory in their actions and, therefore, none of us are immune to becoming victims”. That is a very potent point that we hope will resonate with those individuals who rush to the defence of these heartless killers whenever they are caught.

However, the main focus of Mr Champagnie’s letter, and which, we maintain, is one of the most important problems plaguing this country, is that of complicity by evil individuals with the actions of criminals.

Therefore, he has recommended that concomitant to the proposed 30-year sentencing increase, there should be stronger penalties for people found guilty of harbouring killers and those who “knowingly fail to report the dastardly deeds of such persons to the police”.

We expect that there will be fierce opposition to the proposal, but we encourage the debate because that priceless feature of our democracy is what helps to formulate legislation that will redound to the benefit of the country. Too often we find that when ideas are put forward the responses are mired in personal attacks that sometimes get tainted with partisan politics instead of actually being subjected to serious examination of the issues.

There are, of course, a number of issues related to any such move as proposed by Mr Champagnie, for instance, the trust deficit between the public and law enforcers, especially the constabulary, and the fact that communities where gunmen receive cover do so because they are either beneficiaries of the criminals’ largesse or residents are simply too afraid to jeopardise their own lives by sharing what they know with law enforcers.

Those are issues that we have to confront and remedy in order to create a society that is safe and in which public order and the rule of law are respected. We cannot be satisfied that convicts — on being given light sentences — respond privately with disdain that the sentences are “cowboy lunchtime”, meaning, basically, a short break.

We are aware that law enforcers are increasing their use of technology and science to combat crime and we commend them for that. The authorities must now give greater focus on the people who shield and facilitate criminals by making their lives a living hell.