THE ATTRITION OF CRIMINAL GANGS:
I note with concern the headline saying “Gangs Crave Peace” in to-day’s Gleaner, 27/02/2014
In my estimation, Peace in any situation is difficult to regain once it is breached. If the gangs crave peace, who will consider the rights of the victims of the havoc that the gangs started? Those persons who have been hurt during various criminal activities, need to be recompensed of their goods and injuries especially if a husband, wife, common-law spouse was killed. What about a child that is murdered or raped; who will pay the expenses of some form of redress, which includes upkeep and cost of education?
Peace does not usually come without cost; there is justice and retribution to be considered. The suggestion of peace, while a relief, cannot begin unless a negotiation of remedy is initiated. Otherwise there can be no peace, only surrender, and under terms of surrender acceptable to the State.
To ignore, delay, or otherwise postpone the sanctions means that one of the sides of these agreements will not and never will be satisfied. Where does peace then stand in light of this probability? Just as risky as before, so Peace without Justice is not a credible alternative.
There are recent laws (POCA) which define that stolen and recovered property is returned to the STATE, once it can be shown that those assets were not properly earned when obtained. What about the person or persons, who directly own the asset, say a car, a house, or money in the Bank, which now is recovered. Does the loser have a right of recovery, though he might not be able to show the asset has been owned for years? I have always felt there are many weaknesses in this Law, this being one, and the State is obliged to consider the rights of the true owners.
Finally, I get the impression that the Crime Management authorities do not want to negotiate, and I can understand why. After achieving an objective, why do you want it mitigated without reason? They have a