We have long held the view that a significant contributor to the sustenance of crime in this country, 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 heinous activities.

In the majority of instances, the beasts committing crimes are armed with weapons that they are unable to afford, making it very obvious that those firearms and ammunition are provided by people with the financial means to acquire them.

We have no doubt that all well-thinking Jamaicans are totally fed-up with the volume of crimes being committed, even as we accept data from the police showing a decrease in murders.

We note, though, that the police are having more success in apprehending criminals and are presenting credible evidence in court to secure convictions. While we encourage them to continue and improve on that performance, we hope that the debate now in Parliament on the minimum sentence for murder will end with the implementation of punishment fitting the crime.

For, as Justice Minister Mr Delroy Chuck said in the Parliament last week as he opened the debate: “At the end of the day, we cannot ignore the fact that when you take life and you’re charged and convicted there is a victim who is six feet down. And even though that victim cannot speak, the families, friends, and the society at large are very concerned about what is the justice for those victims.”

While we share Minister Chuck’s view that penalties considered under Bills now before the House cannot, by themselves, solve the problems, a strong signal needs to be sent that premeditated murder will result in imprisonment for a very long time.

The proposed minimum sentence of 50 years for capital murder is not unduly harsh, given the annual murder toll in the country.

At the same time, we urge legislators to give equal focus to the punishment for people who facilitate the actions of criminals.

We reiterate our position that there should be stronger penalties for people found guilty of harbouring killers and those who knowingly fail to report the crimes committed by those beasts to the police.

In fact, we recall that eminent King’s Counsel Mr Peter Champagnie advocated that position in a letter to this newspaper a few years ago.

At the time, we said we expected that there would be fierce opposition to that proposal, but the debate, we hold, must be encouraged because that feature of our democracy is what helps to formulate legislation that will redound to the benefit of the country.

Too often 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.

At the same time, we recognise that there are a number of hurdles that need clearing if we are to create a society that is safe and in which public order and the rule of law are respected. Among them is the trust deficit between the public and law enforcers, as well as the fact that communities protect gunmen and their cronies 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.

However, we cannot be satisfied that those who wilfully kill — like those two scum who took the life of paralegal Ms Sandra Risden last Thursday in morning peak hour traffic on Washington Boulevard — should, on being caught and convicted be given light sentences. They, and those who hired them should be made to pay dearly.