Pornography and violent movies are root causes of crime

I was bemused at Fitzgerald Hind’s publicly expressed opinion that pornography and violent movies are root causes of crime. Granted, in the same vein that he expressed this opinion, he also stated that “I am no sociologist, I am not criminologist [sic] but I am almost certain that they are.” [Daily Express 2/4/23, https://tinyurl.com/5c2aha3u].

I thought such outdated thinking was debunked many moons ago, but here comes our National Security Minister, arguing from authority and emotional thinking, simultaneously making two well-known critical thinking errors in one statement.

To quote from the article, “Responding to Hosein’s comments, Hinds expressed doubt about crime being linked to poverty and unemployment.

“The jury for me is out on that.”

He seems to have been asleep before, during and after the jury delivered on the social determinants of crime.

Might I suggest to the goodly minister that he investigate and make ample use of ChatGPT, a well-known open-source Artificial Intelligence (AI) which provides answers more rooted in reality. ChatGPT, when asked the question, “what are the main social determinants of crime?”, gave the answer below:

“Social determinants of crime are complex and interconnected factors that influence the likelihood of individuals engaging in criminal behaviour. These factors are rooted in social, economic, and environmental conditions. Some of the main social determinants of crime include:

1.        Poverty: Poverty can lead to feelings of desperation, frustration, and hopelessness, which can contribute to criminal activity as people search for ways to meet their basic needs or escape their circumstances.

2.        Education: Lower levels of education are associated with a higher likelihood of criminal involvement. Lack of education can limit job opportunities and social mobility, leading to increased vulnerability to criminal activities.

3.        Family structure: Dysfunctional or unstable family environments can contribute to the development of antisocial behaviour and delinquency, especially when there is a lack of proper supervision, positive role models, or emotional support.

4.        Peer influence: The influence of peers, particularly those involved in criminal activities, can increase the likelihood of an individual participating in crime. Peer pressure and the desire to fit in or gain social status can contribute to criminal behaviour.

5.        Unemployment: High unemployment rates can lead to financial insecurity, social dislocation, and frustration, all of which can contribute to criminal behaviour.

6.        Social disorganization: Communities with high levels of social disorganization, such as those characterized by residential instability, weak social networks, and limited community resources, often experience higher crime rates.

7.        Substance abuse: Alcohol and drug abuse can impair judgment, exacerbate existing mental health issues, and contribute to criminal behaviour, both directly (e.g., drug-related offenses) and indirectly (e.g., property crimes to support a drug habit).

8.        Inequality and social exclusion: Significant income disparities and social exclusion can lead to feelings of resentment, marginalization, and anger, which may contribute to criminal behaviour.

9.        Cultural factors: Cultural values and norms that condone or even encourage criminal behaviour can contribute to crime. For example, some subcultures may view certain criminal acts as acceptable or even prestigious.

10.      Mental health: Mental health issues, such as depression, anxiety, or personality disorders, can increase the risk of criminal behaviour, particularly when left untreated or combined with other risk factors.

It is important to note that these factors are not mutually exclusive, and multiple determinants may interact to influence an individual's likelihood of engaging in criminal behaviour. Addressing these social determinants is critical to reducing crime rates and promoting public safety.”

ChatGPT even provided references for the link between crime and poverty:

“How strongly is poverty associated with crime levels and give me some good references, please.”

“The association between poverty and crime levels is well-established, though the strength of the relationship can vary depending on various factors, including location, type of crime, and the specific measures used to assess poverty. Research indicates that people living in poverty are more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of crime, particularly property and violent crimes.

Here are some references that can provide more insight into the relationship between poverty and crime:

1.        Kelly, M. (2000). Inequality and Crime. Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(4), 530-539. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2646711

2.        Sampson, R. J., & Wilson, W. J. (1995). Toward a Theory of Race, Crime, and Urban Inequality. In J. Hagan & R. D. Peterson (Eds.), Crime and Inequality (pp. 37-54). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

3.        Fajnzylber, P., Lederman, D., & Loayza, N. (2002). Inequality and Violent Crime. The Journal of Law and Economics, 45(1), 1-39. URL: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/338347

4.        Sharkey, P. (2009). Neighborhoods and the Black-White Mobility Gap. Economic Mobility Project, The Pew Charitable Trusts. URL: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/neighborhoods-and-the-blackwhite-mobility-gap

5.        Chiricos, T. G. (1987). Rates of Crime and Unemployment: An Analysis of Aggregate Research Evidence. Social Problems, 34(2), 187-212. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/800558”

Mr Hinds seems out of his depth in thinking at a higher level beyond the Nicki Minaj approach to serious issues. I can only hold my head in despair at what further depths the country’s crime situation will plummet over the next few years.

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.

Where Israel Rajah-Khan went wrong… Again!

I note with interest, coupled with amusement, Mr Israel Rajah-Khan’s attempted chastisement of attorney Brian Baig (Express, 30 June 2022 –https://trinidadexpress.com/opinion/letters/vulgar-claims-against-legal-system/article_51b5cda2-f801-11ec-858e-33817f45e547.html)

Mr Baig has given a semi-appropriate response (Express, 2 July 2022 – https://trinidadexpress.com/opinion/letters/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/article_bc6124ba-f998-11ec-aea9-27ee4e1a5bd3.html ).

Taking Mr Rajah-Khan’s article first:

Mr Rajah-Khan apparently takes umbrage over Mr Baig’s highlighting that several prominent Indo-Trinidadians are or were before the courts on charges, but were/are unsuccessfully prosecuted by the PNM. He then went on to point out that the charges are proffered by the DPP, and heard before an independent judiciary.

Where Mr Rajah-Khan obviously went wrong is that the evidence does not stack up on this position. In the latest Privy Council’s judgment, John Henry Smith and another v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago and others (2022) UKPC 28 (Smith judgment), the Law Lords at the Privy Council certainly made a mockery of Mr Rajah-Khan’s position. In other words, they delivered a serious ‘calpet’ on Mr Rajah-Khan’s perspective.

In paragraph 2 of the judgment, the judges clearly pointed out that the Anti-Corruption Investigation Bureau (ACIB) was established within the Ministry of the Attorney General under then AG John Jeremie. This makes it a political entity. It is this political entity which brought charges under the Piarco 1-4 cases. For Mr Rajah-Khan to say “I can state categorically that there is not a single criminal case in this country whereby a political party prosecuted—be it PNM, NAR or UNC Partnership” demonstrates that he did not read the judgment at all!

In the Smith judgment, the Privy Council judges also clearly pointed out that the judiciary was not independent in any way whatsoever! Not only was there bias on the part of Sherman (Shermie) McNicolls, he was financially and in other ways beholden to John Jeremie, a PNM politically appointed Attorney General!

Note that under the Integrity in Public Life Act, Basdeo Panday an Indo-Trinidadian, remains the ONLY person charged, despite hundreds of others over the past 10 or more years failing to file the mandatory records. And of course, the Privy Council also ruled that under Sherman McNicolls, there was apparent bias in Mr Panday’s trial due to the political obligation Shermie placed himself when accepting financial and other benefits from the AG, John Jeremie. The Smith judgment merely confirms what was raised and proven 12 years or so before!

Additionally, Mr Rajah-Khan states “All citizens, regardless of race, class or creed, if charged with a criminal offence, must receive a fair trial”. Of course, this is what should happen. We all know that what should happen is different from what does happen. Shermie proved that over and over. I have long blogged about his corruption. That much is not in dispute, and is in the public domain if anyone should choose to do a little research. Given that he was the Chief Magistrate, this makes it all the more appalling!

The Smith judgment also showed that High Court and the Court of Appeal in Trinidad and Tobago applied less-than-stellar reasoning. One can only wonder why the population is reluctant to turn to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as the final appeal court, given that some of its judges come from the same pool… But that is a story for another day.

Mr Rajah-Khan also mentions “two other prominent East Indian attorneys’ names were mentioned in his sordid letter but their criminal cases are before the court, and thus sub judice, and it would be unethical to mention their names in my letter.”

The sub judice rules apply when mentioning something currently before the court will influence the outcome of the trial, or in other words, prevent a fair trial. Surely the names of the attorneys so charged are in the public domain? Their matters will be listed on the court website. Thus, why would mentioning their names prevent a fair trial?

Mr Baig himself made a tactical error in his response to Mr Rajah-Khan. Instead of addressing the issues Mr Rajah-Khan brought up, he misdirected himself to point out a 19-point list of PNM corruption, which have not been prosecuted. That may be relevant to political point-scoring but fails to address the core issues. If Mr Baig wished to set Mr Rajah-Khan right, refute the points he made, not introduce new tangential issues.

I urge Mr Rajah-Khan to be more circumspect in voicing his opinion. After all, he has 43 years’ experience at the Criminal Bar.