When I first began studying crime, homicide was considered as non-preventative. I always found this odd. However, as I became more familiar with homicide investigation and prevention I realised why.

You see, back in those days domestic murder made up one-third of our homicides. However, when the gang activity and murders really stepped up, those ratios went out the door. Domestic murders, as a figure, remained consistent, but not as a percentage of the whole because gang murders increased so significantly that they took over the homicide cycle. Now gang murders, unlike domestic and ‘robbery gone bad murders’, can be controlled. This is largely dependent on having tools at your disposal.

Most countries which have massive threats like terrorism and gangs that can force and influence government decisions, based on their size, wealth and degree of armaments have done away with the idealistic structure of a society that treats the rights of the most dangerous the same as the rights of the most meek.

Legal remand acts or states of emergency are creatively applied, and used by governments on the front line of the proverbial battlefield. Prime examples are Colombia in the Pablo Escobar era, England in the conflict with the Irish Republican Army over the theft of a piece of Ireland, and, of course, El Salvador, now the poster child of gang control, which has perfected the art of ignoring human rights organisations. And let us not forget the bastion of freedom, the United States of America, which has that creative piece of legislation called the Homeland Security Act.

I applaud all these countries. They did what was necessary to mitigate the threat. This includes England, even though I believe it has no legitimate claim to Northern Ireland. At the same time, I don’t believe in the methods used by the terrorists to pursue their cause. Here in Jamaica we had ours too. We had the Suppression of Crime Act for almost two decades, ending 1994.

Recently I saw an article where Jamaicans For Justice were praising a decision by the courts that the current use of parochial states of emergency are unconstitutional. Be careful what you hope for, because it’s literally all we have left. I know you may not realise it, so I excuse your actions because of your ignorance, but trust me, it’s all we have.

Let me give you a walk through the recent history of the Jamaican people being stripped of their ability to fight their greatest enemy since the British in the pre-Emancipation era. In 1994, the Suppression of Crime Act was repealed by the PJ Patterson-led Government. Now, I have the greatest respect and admiration for Prime Minister Patterson. I think he was one of the two brightest men to have ever led Jamaica; the other being Prime Minister Bruce Golding, who unfortunately, never got to realise his full potential.

The decision to repeal the Suppression of Crime Act was logical and reasonable to anyone who is not intricately involved in combating Jamaican gangs. It seemed like the right thing to do, the civil war and the bloodshed that spawned the Act had dissipated, but to the men who actually were involved in the war, it was clear it was releasing the chain off the pit bull in the nursery.

Human rights activism played a part in that repealing as well. But the activist didn’t realise what they were doing, because like the other great leaders and decision makers involved, they had never been part of the war against the gangs.

Okay, so we lost the suppression of crime Act. Criminals and the regular guy had the same rights in relation to remand. Then came the next attack, that being strip the constitution of the exceptions that allow for Acts like this to ever be used again. This was done to meet the standard to become a signatory to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.

So the state of emergency (SOE) was all we were left with, and in recent years it has been quite brilliantly used parochially. Now, based on the recent court decision, it appears that the SOE soon cannot be used again .

This is a disaster, one for which the human rights community is part of its architecture. The human rights community doesn’t even realise how dangerous a position they have helped to put us in. Quite frankly, I am not sure anyone has told them. So let me. You cannot fight al-Qaeda, ISIS, the IRA or Jamaican organised street gangs with the same tools that you fight drug gangs in London. They are simply not the same animal. Remand without charge is required to fight threats at the level of the aforementioned. Anyone telling you otherwise is likely naive or dishonest.

There is a reason that President Nayib Bukele is using it and there is a reason why there are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. It’s about the power and ability to lock them up the same way you do a prisoner of war. Not because it is easier, but because it is necessary.

Not every police officer and soldier understands the need for remand without charge. Most politicians don’t, no human rights activist does. The reason is that not every job in the force or army involves actually fighting the gangs. No politician, barring the ones who actually become ministers of national security, are remotely involved in the process, and as much as I strain my brain trying to remember, I can’t recall seeing a human rights activist beside me under fire in the dead of night with a rifle in his/her hand.

So the next time the Klansman gang decides to shoot up Spanish Town and the only tool is combat, just remember, you helped to build that house.

Feedback: drjasonamckay@gmail.com