I arrested a man one day for armed robbery. It was a significant amount of money that had been stolen, and the robbery was a very violent incident. When I got the instruction to go for him I was expecting a violent-looking thug, a dunce, and a man, as per usual, living in abject poverty. Arriving at his gate, in a middle-class community in Spanish Town, St Catherine, I was a bit surprised. It was a decent-looking concrete house.

When I entered the house, his room was nice, the house was well-kept and clean, and the furniture was tasteful. He was pleasant, used to attend a traditional high school, and even had a job at a call centre. However, he was guilty as hell of committing the robbery; he even gave a confession.

After all the formalities were over, I had to ask him why. I was confused. So I worded it this way: “You are in need of nothing, why would you commit a crime like this?

His reply to me is a reflection of what is wrong with this current generation of young men. He said: “Mi a par with man who a buy top-shelf liquor; mi waan buy top-shelf liquor too.”

All sorts of words came into my mind, including a few
Bible verses. Envious, selfish, stupid, cruel, ungrateful, all were relevant descriptions of him.

I met his father. He is a good man. This accused young man is not your typical gunman, but he is your typical scammer.

More recently, I arrested another young man. His house in an informal Kingston settlement had three walls, he had no door because there was no wall to anchor it to. He just lived in a dwelling with three walls. His kitchen was a table outside with all his pots, pans, and plates. He was poor in an unusual way.

We have poor in St Catherine, but if you are that poor the Member of Parliament will help you with at least the one wall to finish your room. This guy was in need. He was also a criminal, and yes, guilty as hell!

I make no excuse for anyone to take anything that other people have worked for, irrespective of how poor they are — unless they are starving. But if I were that poor I could see where becoming a criminal could be a possibility.

So we have established that both men are guilty. If they are to be sentenced for their crimes, public safety has to be considered.

The first one I spoke of has the infrastructure and support to minimise him reoffending. The second one I spoke of has nothing and nobody. How therefore will this impact his sentencing?

Public safety and the likelihood of reoffending is a big part of sentence consideration and probation.

Criminal #1 may be in a position to broker a better sentence for himself. Criminal #2 has no such negotiating power.

Criminal #1 chose a life of crime, despite being blessed with every opportunity. Criminal #2 was literally groomed for crime by his environment.

So, to me, Criminal #1, with his penchant for expensive alcohol, should get 30 years. Criminal #2’s crimes were influenced by a lack of opportunity and extreme poverty, so he should get a lesser sentence.

Sentencing, however, is not that limited in its consideration. Public safety, likelihood for rehabilitation, cooperation with the process, and many other factors have to be considered. They would, of course, consider greed versus need.

The average person, however, would simply realise that Criminal #1 is just a bad person who needs to stay in prison for the rest of his natural life. But, the system is not that simple or simplistic.

Criminal #1 will possibly get a better deal. He is simply less likely to offend because he doesn’t need to offend.

I’m a trained criminologist. I understand. But still, as a human being, it doesn’t seem right.

Looking at Criminal #1 closely, what does his explanation represent for his generation of Jamaican youth? Does this explain the scamming phenomenon? These guys don’t ever earn enough to stop doing what they’re doing. They continue until they get caught. It’s not about satiating their needs, and their wants seem endless.

I found a teenager who is a suspected scammer with $1 million the other day. What is his cut-off point? When will he be satisfied?

Looking at Criminal #2, is his crime a reasonable response to his poverty? Are we going to one day focus on his condition and many others like him and introduce a welfare solution to pauper housing? Is it reasonable that over 60 years after Independence people still live like this?

I find that both men, in their own way, represent major problems in our society that transcend generations. Greed and envy are motivators that define Criminal #1’s actions and selfishness. Ignorance and neglect are contributors to Criminal #2’s conduct.

So a lack of values and a history of ignoring the housing dilemma created by a corrupted, Emancipation treaty; British colonialism; and a functioning oligopoly that lasted 140 years created both criminals. I think we can agree on that. Where we may disagree is the solution.

How do we get to fix the value system of a generation of young males who believe they are entitled to wealth without work?

First, we have to acknowledge that we have this issue, figure out why, and then approach it by fostering the creation of a different set of values. It is entirely possible to change society or a subgroup’s values. It has been done for very negative and positive reasons before.

Look on Nazism in Germany in the 1930s. Look at them now!

The change in values came from an actual effort by the Government of West Germany in the period after World War II. Look what General Douglas MacArthur did in post-World War II Japan also. But first, you have to admit you have a problem.

The social conditions that, in my opinion, created Criminal #2 can easily be addressed if we finish what we started in respect of addressing poverty at all levels. We have addressed education. We just have to tweak it. We have addressed employment, we have the lowest unemployment rate in history. We now need to focus on the creation of a society in which nobody needs to live within three walls, when you require four.

Poor relief housing that is given out by the Government could be considered a staple for all citizens living below the poverty line. It is actually doable. But first, you have to have an intention.

Feedback: drjasonamckay@gmail.com