Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts

14 Oct 2022

A recipe for anarchy

I am astounded the Dr Varma Deyalsingh, and others, are calling on the government to arm citizens. What a colossally stupid idea!

As a doctor, Deyalsingh may be touted to be in the top 10 percentile of intelligent people in the country; but his statement indicates this may be a fallacious perception. It is also not the first time he has spewed words in public without the benefit of sober thought.

Evidence shows, and any simple comparison of countries with higher access to guns and those without easy access to guns, that countries such as the USA where citizens are easily armed have higher gun related crimes and deaths than those counties without access to arms. Factually, the incidents with the highest death tolls in the USA are committed by American White homegrown terrorists with access to guns.

While typing this, I am reading about an incident in the USA where two drivers shot each other’s daughters – ages 5 and 14 – not each other! Had they been unarmed this would have never happened. [https://tinyurl.com/2p9b6fee]. Incidentally, yes, they were both white Americans.

Trinidad and Tobago citizens are prone to the same human weaknesses that affect us all. Hence, allowing access to guns is another link in a chain to anarchy. Resorting to using a gun over petty squabbles will soon be a ‘norm’.

Just looked at what happened in the case of an off-duty police officer who shot a man over a parking space. Yes, his story changed, the police are supporting one of their own but the video evidence, which I have seen, does not support his version of the story.

Frankly, it will serve the country better to have a more effective, intelligence driven and better trained, police service.

21 Feb 2021

Israel Khan's Doubliethink

Israel Khan SC has been out in front recently calling for the death penalty to be implemented. Unfortunately, the learned gent has missed some fundamental issues. He has erred in his logic and his knowledge base needs updating. He digs in like an Alabama tick on his position of 28 years ago – indicating to me, that in nearly 3 decades his thinking has remained stagnant, in spite of gaining Senior Counsel (SC) status through years of legal experience.

What Mr Khan is suggesting– opposing Blackstone’s ratio – is that 999 people should be hanged, together with the 1 guilty person! (see statistics below). He is pandering to those emotionally charged and intellectually void for popularity votes/approval.

Catching the criminals.

Mr Khan must know of the hundreds of people missing and presumed dead in T&T. Those are counted by the population as homicides. No perpetrators have been found. The hangman’s noose swings empty and idle. And that is at the heart of Mr Khan’s mistake and he actually recognises part of the problem. He said “…Vicious, wicked, evil and deliberate murderers should be executed while others outside this category, if found guilty, should receive a term of imprisonment up to life.”

The magic words are ‘if found guilty’. Mr Khan must know that in the finding of guilt, the criminal justice system must first find a person to prosecute and then be robust enough to navigate all technicalities in law, to deliver justice. The death penalty has to be finalised within 5 years. So says the Privy Council - the highest court for T&T.

Statistics

Success rates of detection currently lie below 6% according to the US’ CIA. Prosecution success, based upon well-known court statistics, is 1% of that 6%… In other words, 0.06%. To put it bluntly, TTPS’ ability to find evidence that actually stands up to vigorous scrutiny in a court of law is less than 0.1% of the crimes that are actually perpetrated on the public– all of this is floating in the public domain for years. Less than 1 in 1000!

Let that sink in!

Now, think about it some more.

No… You still have not thought about it enough.

Really concentrate on what those figures mean for the public and the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago – not the politicians; they have armed police escorts complete with blue lights and siren.

Mr Khan’s factual knowledge

Mr Khan very well knows of the hackneyed and insipid ability of the police in bringing cases to prosecution and getting the job done properly. He and his son Daniel Khan (former Inspector of Prisons), are aware of the woeful performance of the justice system which has hundreds of people on remand in prison awaiting trials, for donkey’s years (10 to 15 years seem normal by public account).

By contrast, another member of his Chambers, Mrs Ula Nathai-Lutchman had been out in front talking Human Rights for prisoners. She won a whole string of cases at the Appeal Court, which showed up flaws in the justice system. This is also in the public domain. Mr Khan knows about all that.

Failure of logic

Mr Khan submits that for an innocent man, “…It is better that he be executed than to incarcerate him for life; for that man knowing he is innocent would live a life of misery and may even wish that he were dead.” - and in the next breath, Khan states, “under our criminal justice system, it is one hundred times greater than a guilty person could be acquitted than an innocent person be convicted for murder.” The latter is a false comparison, devoid of the applications of the logic and must be confined to what is known as doublethink.

I am bewildered how Mr Khan recognises that the system might fail and a few innocents get their necks popped, but that is a price society must be willing to pay. This has been refuted by better legal minds (William Blackstone being the most famous) than him over the few centuries that the legal system has been developed (see below).

Relics of the past

Mr Khan relies on the thinking of Dr Wolf Middendorff, a criminologist of influence back in the 1970s, as some authoritative reference. Mr Khan’s quote of Middendorf is from a contribution in the book “Punishment for and Against” by H. B. Acton, last published in 1971. The book is a historical relic which would set you back around USD$ 500 for a hardcover copy - not because of true value but because it is simply a collector’s item.

Mr Khan creates the appearance of himself being tied into reputable sources from a bygone era. Khan would do well to pull himself into the 21st Century, where there are other reputable research results and opinions. The philosophy of law and legal concepts about punishment, have been baked into more balanced thinking, from 1971 to now, through endless test cases in international law and balanced applications of mature modern legal principles.

Is he afflicted by toxins in the blood affecting his thinking? Mr Khan needs to demonstrate the “enlightened leadership” he calls for.

2 Jan 2020

Systems Thinking and Policing

Dear Gary Griffith,


Rather than ‘fight tooth and nail’ with your critics, who are obviously aware that you are failing in your responsibilities as Commissioner of Police (CoP) and as the top ‘crimefighter’, won’t it be better for you to ‘man up’ and recognise the nature of the beast you face? There is no need for you to reinvent the wheel – most of the work has been done for you already.

Police work is what is known as a ‘wicked problem’. Rittel& Webber (1973) identified the following 10 characteristics of a wicked problem:

  1. No definitive formulation.
  2. No stopping rules.
  3. Solutions are not true or false, but better or worse.
  4. No immediate and no ultimate test of a solution.
  5. Solution is a “one-shot operation’; no opportunity to learn by trial and error, every attempt counts significantly.
  6. Do not have a fixed number (or describable) of potential solutions, no set of permissible operations to employ.
  7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
  8. Every wicked problem can be a symptom of another problem (introducing complexity).
  9. Wicked problems can be explained in numerous ways. Choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s solution (More on this later).
  10. No right to be wrong (planners are liable for consequences of actions).

This brings me to the current problem-solving culture within the police service:

1.   there is a historical predominance of traditional hard systems thinking (HST) for problem solving.

2.   A culture of evidence-based decisions which place emphasis on numerical data and statistical validity such as randomised controlled trials (RCT).

3.   Often impossible to define problems, their causes and effects in absolute terms required.

4.   Police managers are increasingly required to respond to high variety, complex problem contexts.

5.   Low variety problem-solving approaches such as HST may not be sufficient in new environments.

6.   There needs to be greater understanding of systems’ contexts.

7.    Whole-systems approaches seek to balance HST, with appropriate emphasis on ‘softer’ problem structuring method e.g. SSM and VSM.

(Adapted from Newsome and Wiggett (2014)).

Crime fighting requires ‘systems thinking’: the ability to view the interconnectedness of the entire “criminal system” inclusive of the police force, in a holistic manner, and looking to see where applying leverage can have the most effect upon the entire system. It means taking into consideration different perspectives, from different stakeholders, applying methodology instead of methods and recognising the limitations imposed by the system itself and that sometimes there are no solutions.

Newsome and Wiggett (2014) identified 10 characteristics of systems thinking force:

1.   has clarity of purpose, derived from the service users’ perspectives (i.e. the public)

2.   adopts a whole systems approach, where interdependencies are understood.

3.   Has staff that understand the purpose, and their service responses are flexible to help achieve that purpose.

4.   understand that the greatest influences on performance and service are determined by the system.

5.   Understand the implications of setting boundaries within a system, and seeks to engage the whole system and make an improvement.

6.   Uses a variety of measurement and information to understand system performance, so as to identify learning and secure improvement.

7.   Understand the variety of its demand and how services can be optimised to satisfy this.

8.   Trust staff to apply informed professional judgement in support of achieving purpose.

9.   Has a culture of learning and continuous improvement where staff are empowered and equipped to understand and improve performance.

10.Respects and encourages the staff’s sense of vocation, and recognises the value of this in improving their well-being, commitment and whole system performance.


Traditional policing methods will have a high probability of failure in a modern society. That is not to say that they don’t have their place. But the police force must evolve, from the perceived “brute squad” to a highly effective thinking and performing unit. It will take a lot to make these changes – systems have a way of resisting change. You may want to investigate Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and Viable Systems Model (VSM), a combination of which has been identified by Kinloch et al (2008) as a more effective tool.


If you want to succeed, rather than further alienating your detractors, identify the core problem you face, which is that your current police force is not effective in its present form and drastic changes are needed. Begin there.

Letter to CoP Gary Griffith

Dear Mr Griffith,


Before you respond, I ask you to consider some words first said at the end of World War II:


“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice.

One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force.

Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease.

Against stupidity we are defenceless.

    • Neither protests nor the use of force accomplishes anything here;
    • reasons fall on deaf ears;
    • facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed
    • – in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical –
    • and when facts are irrefutable, they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental.

In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack.

For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one.

Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.” [Dietrich Bonhoeffer]

Consider the murder rate in Trinidad and Tobago – which has already reached 535 as of today 31 December 2019, with one day left to go – I put the following questions to you, as the person responsible for the keeping of the peace (control, prevention , and detection of crime) in Trinidad and Tobago.


1.   What percentage of all homicides in the last 5 years have been successfully prosecuted?

2.   Does the police service have sufficient manpower and resources to effectively investigate all cases on record and those to come?

3.   In its current configuration to date, is the police service effective in controlling or deterring serious crime? [A straight yes or no would do].

4.   If ‘yes’ to the above, what percentage reduction in the homicide rate can the public expect to see – per annum – averaged over the next 5 years? [Using the average annual rate over the preceding 5 years].

5.   Is the country being held to ransom by criminals?

6.   Can we expect the detection rate for crime, especially murders, to rise above 6% (as cited by the USA)?

Now, I have asked these questions before, in February 2018. As expected, no answers were supplied. Not that I expected any differently. I also noted – with utter dread, I might add – that you used words to the effect that we (the public) should be grateful that the murder total is not higher [Daily Express, 28 December 2019).


Over to you, Mr Griffith. Ordinary people will await your sensible answers to my questions. I ask you to lead your flock away from stupidity. You are invited to prove Bonhoeffer wrong.