The Anti-Gang Bill being debated before Parliament is causing furor in the Afro-Trinidadian community and some say rightly so.
Its wording seems to target ghetto youth in the instant, but is also vague and far reaching enough to be used against all manner of persons to deprive them of their liberty and to deny them their rights as guaranteed under the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad & Tobago.The Bill (attached here) gives officers of the State the power to determine gang member status without the involvement of the Court outside of the ambit of the Constitution, and seems to move to conviction without due process by allowing all manner of persons to be labelled 'gang Members' and all manner of association 'Gang Related Activity' subject to the whim of the enquiring officer.
The Constitution of the Republic guarantees fundamental rights and these make up the first chapter of that revered document:
CHAPTER 1
THE RECOGNITION AND PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
PART I
Rights enshrined
4. It is hereby recognised and declared that in Trinidad and Tobago there have existed and shall continue to exist, without discrimination by reason of race, origin, colour, religion or sex, the following fundamental human rights and freedoms, namely–
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
(c) the right of the individual to respect for his private and family life;
(d) the right of the individual to equality of treatment from any public authority in the exercise of any functions;
(e) the right to join political parties and to express political views;
(f) the right of a parent or guardian to provide a school of his own
choice for the education of his child or ward;
(g) freedom of movement;
(h) freedom of conscience and religious belief and observance;
(i) freedom of thought and expression;
(j) freedom of association and assembly; and
(k) freedom of the press.
(j) freedom of association and assembly; and
(k) freedom of the press.
The highlighted freedoms are not to be taken lightly nor should they be bartered away in exchange for the whims of any politician or group. That this Government is failing to deliver its campaign promise of solving the crime scourge is quite obvious and may well be the impetuous for this knee jerk legislation.
The public at large is urged to resist such abuses by any Administration and to seek protection through the Courts if this Bill becomes Law as drafted.
[Please read so as to speak from an informed position]
BILL
AN ACT to make provision for the suppression of association established for unlawful purposes and for the better preservation of public safety and order and for other related matters.
[ , 2010]
WHEREAS it is enacted by section 13(1) of the Constitution that an Act of Parliament to which that
Preamble8
section applies may expressly declare that it shall have effect even though inconsistent with sections 4 and 5 of the Constitution and, if any Act does so declare, it shall have effect accordingly:
And whereas it is provided in section 13(2) of the Constitution that an Act of Parliament to which that section applies is one the Bill for which has been passed by both Houses of Parliament and at the final vote thereon in each House has been supported by the votes of not less than three fifths of all the members of that House:
And whereas it is necessary and expedient that the provisions of this Act shall have effect even though inconsistent with sections 4 and 5 of the Constitution.
ENACTED by the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago as follows:
1. This Act may be cited as the Anti-Gang Act, 2010.
2. This Act shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by the President by Proclamation.
2. This Act shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by the President by Proclamation.
3. This Act shall have effect even though inconsistent with sections 4 and 5 of the Constitution.
4. (1) In this Act— “ammunition” has the meaning assigned to
that word in the Firearms Act;
“bullet-proof vest” means a vest that is capable of providing protection from the penetration of bullets;
“child”means a person who is under eighteen years of age;
“firearm” has the meaning assigned to that word in the Firearms Act;
“gang” means any alliance, combination, enterprise or other similar conjoining of two
or more persons whether formally or informally organised that, through its membership or through the agency of any member, engages in any gang-related activity;
“gang member” means a person who belongs to a gang, or a person who knowingly acts in the capacity of an agent for or an accessory to, or is legally accountable for, or voluntarily associates himself with any gang-related activity, whether in a preparatory, executory or cover-up phase of any such activity, or a person who knowingly performs, aids, or abets any such activity;
“gang-related activity” means any criminal activity, enterprise, pursuit or undertaking acquiesced in, or consented or agreed to, or directed, ordered, authorised, requested or ratified by any gang member including a gang leader, officer, or governing or policy-making person or authority, or by any agent, representative or deputy of any such officer, person, or authority of the gang, whether with or without the intent to:
(a) increase the gang’s size, membership, prestige, dominance or control in any geographical area;
(b) provide the gang with any advantage in, or any control or dominance over any criminal offence;
(c) exact revenge or retribution for the gang or any gang member;
(d) obstruct justice, or intimidate or eliminate any witness against the gang or any gang member; or
(e) otherwise directly or indirectly cause any benefit, aggrandisement, gain, profit or other advantage whatsoever to or for the gang, its reputation, influence, or membership;
“law enforcement authorities” include—
(a) the Police Service established under the Police Service Act, 2006;
(b) the Customs and Excise Division established under the Customs Act;
(c) the Board of Inland Revenue established under the Income Tax Act; and
(d) any other agency of the State in which investigative powers, similar to those exercisable by a police officer appointed under the Police Service Act, 2006, are lawfully vested;
“recruits” includes counsel, procure, lure, solicit, incite or induce.”
(2) For the purpose of this Act, it shall not be necessary to show that a particular gang possesses, acknowledges or is known by any common name, insignia, flag, means of recognition, secret signal or code, creed, belief, structure, leadership or command structure, method of operation, criminal enterprise, concentration or speciality, membership, age or other qualification, initiation, rites, geographical or territorial situs, boundary or location, or other unifying mark, manner, protocol or method of expressing or indicating its membership when the gang’s existence can be demonstrated by a preponderance of other admissible evidence, but any evidence reasonably tending to show or demonstrate the existence of or membership in a gang shall be admissible in any action or proceedings brought under this Act.
5. (1) It is hereby declared that gangs are unlawful and any person—
(a) who is or attempts to become a member of a gang; or
(b) who professes to be a gang member when in fact he is not, whether by telling anyone that he is a gang member or otherwise suggesting to anyone that he is a gang member,
commits an offence and is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for twenty years.
(2) Where the person convicted under subsection (1) is a gang leader, he is liable to imprisonment for the remaining years of his natural life.
(3) Where the person convicted under subsection (1) is a police officer, prison officer, a member of the Defence Force, a constable appointed under the Supplemental Police Act or the Special Reserve Police Act, a member of a protective service agency or a person involved in law enforcement he is liable to imprisonment for twenty-five years.
6. (1) A person who, whether or not he is a gang commits a gang-related activity at the direction of any gang member;
knowingly assists, aids or abets any gang member to carry out a gang-related activity;
conceals or assists in the concealment of a gang-related activity by the gang;
recruits or attempts to recruit a person to a gang, or otherwise solicits or invites support for the gang; or
knowingly commits, assists, aids or abets in the commission of any non-gang related activity at the direction of, or in concert with, or for the benefit of, the gang, or conceals or assists in the concealment of the same,
commits an offence and is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine of five hundred thousand dollars and to imprisonment for twenty years.
(2) It is a defence for a person charged for an offence under subsection (1) (a), (c) or (d) to prove that he did not know that any person under whose direction he acted, or whom he assisted, aided or abetted to carry out the offence, or for whom he concealed or assisted in the concealment of the offence, as the case may be, was or might be a gang member.
7. A person who has in his possession or under his care or control a bullet-proof vest, firearm or ammunition, whether lawfully obtained or not, which he intends or ought to know will be used for the benefit of or at the direction of a gang, or any gang member, commits an offence and is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine of four hundred thousand dollars and to imprisonment for fifteen years.
8. A person who harbours or conceals a person whom he knows is a gang member and whom he knows is wanted by any member of the law enforcement authorities commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars and to imprisonment for five years.
9. (1) A person who— (a) harbours or conceals a person whom he knows
or suspects is a child and a gang member; or
(b) recruits to a gang a person whom he knows or suspects is a child,
commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of three hundred thousand dollars and to imprisonment for ten years.
Possession of bullet-proof vest, firearm or ammunition for benefit of gang
Harbouring or concealing gang members
Harbouring or recruiting children
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1)(b), a person who within five hundred metres of a school or place of worship recruits to a gang a person whom he knows or suspects is a child commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for twenty years.
10. (1) A police officer may arrest without warrant a person whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be a gang member or whom he has reasonable cause to believe has committed an offence under this Act.
(2) A police officer may, with a warrant issued by a Magistrate so enabling him to do, with proper assistance, enter any dwelling house, by force and breaking doors if necessary, and search the same if he has reasonable cause to believe that a gang member may be found in that dwelling house.
(3) A police officer may enter and search any place or premises not used as a dwelling house without a warrant if he has reasonable cause to believe that a gang member may be found in such place or premises.
11. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Court which convicts a person of an offence under this Act may, in addition to any other penalty, order the forfeiture of any personal property which, at the time of the offence, he had in his possession or under his control provided it is shown that he had such property for the use or benefit of a gang.
(2) Where a person, other than the convicted person, claims to be the owner of or otherwise interested in any personal property which can be forfeited by order under this section, the Court shall, before making such an order in respect of it, give him an opportunity to be heard.
12. This Act shall continue in force for a period of five years from the date of its commencement.
It is my firm belief that the abysmal detection rate of crime is at the heart of the ongoing and unstoppable crime wave, and giving police further draconian powers to disrupt the lives of law abiding citizens is in no way the answer to the problem. The predominantly UNC led Government cannot escape the fact that their support base is largely Indo-Trinidadian in make up, yet this bill as worded seems to deliberately target Afro-Trinidadian youth and one wonders if this in not outright racist politicking cloaked in anti-crime rhetoric, and worse, if there are not further sinister motives behind it.
The potential for abuse by authorities as written into this bill undermines many of the freedoms we all enjoy and, while it is fair to WANT to assume that it will target criminals and their enterprises for the greater good of society, it also puts society itself at risk for abuse at the hands of corrupt public officials and dishonest members of the security forces.
I am uncomfortable with the means to determine what is a gang, who is a gang member and what constitutes gang related activity. These three items need to be worded much more specifically so as to focus on the criminal element and not expose the population to State sponsored abuse.
In my opinion, this Bill is far too vague in its terminology and wording and one wonders again if deliberately so. It ought to be rejected and returned to the drafters with instructions that all further work be done with full respect for the citizens of the country and be worded in that manner.
We are all united in our desire to have the backs of criminal enterprise broken, but we should not be so eager as to jump from the frying pan into the fire.
Something to think about....
I hear you Phillip,it's a razors edge we are on actually. How do we effectively deal with crime,whilst not encroaching on individuals rights. Too often the innocent pay the price either way.
ReplyDelete@ PEA: it is 4(j) freedom of association and assembly that should also be bolded. That is probably the one most infringed by the anti-gang bill.
ReplyDeleteA gang is sometimes difficult to define, especially in legal terms. Although gangs typically involve a congregation of individuals, primarily young males, certainly not all congregations or informal gatherings of young individuals constitut...e gangs. Definitions of gangs or street gangs vary among the laws governing them. Alabama law, for example, defines a "streetgang" as, "[A]ny combination, confederation, alliance, network, conspiracy, understanding, or similar arrangement in law or in fact, of three or more persons that, through its membership or through the agency of any member, engages in a course or pattern of criminal activity." Ala. Code § 13A-6-26 (2002).
ReplyDeleteCongress, state legislatures, and municipal governments have responded to the growing tide of gangs by considering a variety of bills addressing gang violence. Although efforts at the federal level have largely been unsuccessful, many states and municipalities have enacted laws designed to deter gang-related violence. Several of these statutes and ordinances have been fashioned as anti-loitering statutes, which often raise FIRST AMENDMENT concerns. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1999 made it more difficult for municipalities to draft gang loitering ordinances when it found that an ordinance such as this in the city of Chicago was unconstitutional. City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 119 S. Ct. 1849, 144 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1999).
Read more: Gangs - Background, Federal Law, State Law, Do Anti-gang Laws Violate The Constitution?, Local Ordinances http://law.jrank.org/pages/7073/Gangs.html#ixzz16uligEMv
A hugely dangerous 'knee jerk' reaction, that potentially can have savage consequences for the population.
ReplyDeleteIt would take only a couple of over enthusiastic police actions- for this Bill to be interpreted as racially targeted- with absolutely disastrous consequences.
Playing with fire is the best way to define this badly thought out and contentious piece of poorly drafted legislation!
I fail to see that you have made a case for your concern. would you be able to give solid reasons, based upon the Bill, for your concern?
ReplyDeleteYour commentary cites far too much paranoiac generalisations instead of specifics to make your point.
As I said in the above piece - I am uncomfortable with the means to determine what is a gang, who is a gang member and what constitutes gang related activity. These three items need to be worded much more specifically so as to focus on the criminal element and not expose the population to State sponsored abuse.
ReplyDeletea)“gang member” means a person who belongs to a gang, or a person who knowingly acts in the capacity of an agent for or an accessory to, or is legally accountable for, or voluntarily associates himself with any gang-related activity, whether in a preparatory, executory or cover-up phase of any such activity, or a person who knowingly performs, aids, or abets any such activity;
ReplyDeleteb)“gang-related activity” means any criminal activity, enterprise, pursuit or undertaking acquiesced in, or consented or agreed to, or directed, ordered, authorised, requested or ratified by any gang member including a gang leader, officer, or governing or policy-making person or authority, or by any agent, representative or deputy of any such officer, person, or authority of the gang...
Seems pretty clear to me.
The problem with drafting laws is that it must be general enough to cover a whole RANGE of foreseeable and unforeseeable situations. hence, laws cannot be made too specific...
The one undefined thing I can find in the act is a "gang leader". Since being one carries a life sentence, that's a problem. But in reality, it seems like it would make it harder to convict someone as a gang leader.
ReplyDeleteAs for the issue of defining a gang and gang-related activity, the act says:
gang-related activity” means any criminal activity, enterprise, pursuit or undertaking acquiesced in, or consented or agreed to, or directed, ordered, authorised, requested or ratified by any gang member including a gang leader, officer, or governing or policy-making person or authority, or by any agent, representative or deputy of any such officer, person, or authority of the gang, whether with or without the intent to:
(a) increase the gang’s size, membership, prestige, dominance or control in any geographical area;
(b) provide the gang with any advantage in, or any control or dominance over any criminal offence;
(c) exact revenge or retribution for the gang or any gang member;
(d) obstruct justice, or intimidate or eliminate any witness against the gang or any gang member; or
(e) otherwise directly or indirectly cause any benefit, aggrandisement, gain, profit or other advantage whatsoever to or for the gang, its reputation, influence, or membership;
So you need to have:
(1) criminal activity, enterprise, pursuit or undertaking
That's right there at the start. You need to have criminal activity. No crime, no gang-related activity.
In addition to the need for criminal activity, there's a second bit. Now I get lost in the legalese of
(2) acquiesced in, or consented or agreed to, or directed, ordered, authorised, requested or ratified by any gang member including a gang leader, officer, or governing or policy-making person or authority, or by any agent, representative or deputy of any such officer, person, or authority of the gang
but it seems to be saying that this criminal activity needs to be organised, needs to be part of the wider criminal enterprise.
I don't see how any of this infringes on the constitutional rights issues. The concept of "harbouring" fugitives has existed alongside basic freedoms for a long time. This is nothing new. As for the ability of the police to arrest people that they suspect of crimes - yeah, that's the way the law works. People are usually arrested first, convicted after.
And the racial angle - you're smarter than that. It's not like criminal gangs are exclusively Afro-Trinidadian. Pay attention to what happens south of the Corridor. North Trinidadians are blind to 2/3 of the country. Are you saying that you expect the (predominantly Afro-Trinidadian) police service to target Afro-Trinis because the PM is Indian? Yeah, poor people get screwed because they are poor. But that's a feature of the whole (Global) system. Not of any one law.
Law Student, I cannot dismiss Rodger's concerns as paranoiac generalisations, not only because I have not yet given the Bill a careful reading, but also because I actually believe that ALL proposed legislation should be approached with a healthy dose of scepticism. It would be disingenuous of us, especially students of the law, to pretend that legislation is always "value"-neutral and without cultural or class bias.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous #2, I read the excerpt which you selected to define "gang" and "gang-related activity" and the possibilities bloomed before my eyes. Do you think that I am being overly naive to see greater government accountability being secured by this legislation?
Since a Prime Minister bears final responsibility for the actions of the government, as leader of the "government" [insert "political gang"], would the Prime Minister be facing a life sentence if there is uncovered "any criminal activity, enterprise, pursuit or undertaking acquiesced in, or consented or agreed to, or directed, ordered, authorised, requested or ratified by any [political] gang member including a [political] gang leader, officer, or governing or policy-making person or authority or by any agent, representative or deputy of any such officer, person, or authority of the [political] gang, whether with or without the intent to:
(a) increase the [political] gang’s size, membership, prestige, dominance or control in any geographical area;
(b) provide the [political] gang with any advantage in, or any control or dominance over any criminal offence;
(c) exact revenge or retribution for the [political] gang or any [political] gang member;
(d) obstruct justice, or intimidate or eliminate any witness against the [political] gang or any [political] gang member; or
(e) otherwise directly or indirectly cause any benefit, aggrandisement, gain, profit or other advantage whatsoever to or for the [political] gang, its reputation, influence, or membership;"
Law Student, please advise if my scenario falls under "forseeable and unforseeable situations", or does the long arm of the law need its "flexibility" only so that, like a plumber's snake, it can reach into the "gutters" of blue collar crime while ignoring the platinum collar criminals running their "gangs" with impunity from the heights of the economy/society? Wouldn't you agree that "criminal organisation" instead of "gang" would have been a more impartial and less "loaded" target description? Shouldn't this Act then, be cited as the Anti-Criminal Organisation Act, 2010.
Blessings
The paranoiac generalisations I commented on came from the blog writer, Phillip Alexander.
ReplyDeleteI actually believe that ALL proposed legislation should be approached with a healthy dose of scepticism. It would be disingenuous of us, especially students of the law, to pretend that legislation is always "value"-neutral and without cultural or class bias.
You remind me of something the Lord Chief Justice of England said once in a speech.
He said that whenever there is bias or injustice in any law, the courts always find a way to even it out, to be fair. Even if it ultimately means overturning the law. The instances where this does not happen is where the system is corrupted by the people who administer it.
We have to trust that the centuries of judicial experience will tell. I always say Thank God for the Privy Council.
By the way, what you call 'flexibility' is to my thinking called 'discretion' in law. It is an important part of how laws are dispensed. Is this what you have in mind?
Since a Prime Minister bears final responsibility for the actions of the government, as leader of the "government" [insert "political gang"], would the Prime Minister be facing a life sentence if there is uncovered "any criminal activity, enterprise, pursuit or undertaking acquiesced in, or consented or agreed to, or directed, ordered, authorised, requested or ratified... ...
Somehow I don't see the Prime Minister as being the final stopping point. If a police officer is corrupt in league with others of his own, then how can the Prime Minister or even the line Minister be responsible? If someone does a crime, is it the person, or the head of the household who is arrested?
Your imaginings are too far fetched, hence paranoiac. :-)
Phillip, these two clauses in the act which ensure a defense and trial make me quite comfortable with it.
ReplyDelete(2) It is a defense for a person charged for an offence under subsection (1) (a), (c) or (d) to prove that he did not know that any person under whose direction he acted, or whom he assisted, aided or abetted to carry out the offence, or for whom he concealed or assisted in the concealment of the offence, as the case may be, was or might be a gang member.
11. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Court which convicts a person of an offence under this Act may,
Mr./Miss Law Student - While you are comfortable relying on the Privy Council and wizened judges to read sense where nonsense is written, I would prefer save us all the bother and not have it written into law in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day, I respect your right to your opinion, but would advise against coming to the dance half clothed and ready.
We are all entitled to our opinions and where you see others as being paranoid, others might see you as exuberant and simple.
Perhaps to save us all the discomfort of defending against misapplied labels, we would stick to the issue at hand.
While you are comfortable relying on the Privy Council and wizened judges to read sense where nonsense is written, I would prefer save us all the bother and not have it written into law in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThat will never happen. Perhaps you should read up a bit why writing rules or laws is so difficult... It may give you some insight as to why laws are broad without specifics. A good place to start is "How to Do Things with Rules (Law in Context) by William Twining and David R. Miers (Paperback - 18 July 1991)."
Law is open to interpretation and had you not seen these 'issues' you point out, if indeed the Bill was rewritten, you would find something else to complain about.
That is why courts are so important, and separate, from the Administrative and Political arms of Government. The interpretation is best left to those so qualified, and independent.
And to avoid the 'nonsense' you see in the law, there are rules for that too. Look up the Literal Rule, the Golden Rule and the Mischief Rule.
It would be beneficial Mr Alexander, if you post my last comment in response to yours. or are you censoring?
ReplyDeleteAs you have strayed into the realm of attacking other posters here it is only right that you do so with your full name.
ReplyDeleteNot knowing who you are or which Party you represent I will not allow this space to be used for anonymous character assassination.
Post under your name and we will post your comments.
If you would rather not, then stick to the issue and leave the other contributors alone.
That is not censorship, that is fairness.
My 'real' identity is not the issue, and neither is the party I represent (I represent NONE), nor should it be according to your blurb. I quote: feel free to express your authentic self in this space. In any event, my identity is blocked because of possible impact it MAY have on my studies and future career. I prefer to remain anonymous and have a semblance of freedom of expression; sad to say, for reasons of your own, you deny this.
ReplyDeleteI fail to see which poster I 'attacked'. You came in for negative criticism which you seem unable to face. I cited quite clearly in that un-posted comment the allowances the law made for your concerns.
Perhaps you should post that comment and let your readers judge for themselves, since in my opinion, it is based upon legal concepts.
It also quite clearly addressed issues raised by Guanaguanare, and which were not addressed even remotely to you.
If you put your opinions out in public, expect to be taken to account for them. Stop hiding behind censorship. If any other readers/posters feel slighted, it is their remit to debate with me, not yours.
I have to break this comment into two parts because when I try to submit I’m being told that it is too long.
ReplyDeleteLaw Student and Phillip,
Thanks for the discussion. Even though the bill is not at all long, I'm still trying to wrap my rather unruly mind around its contents so I do not envy the people who had to put it together or have to debate it clause by clause. Phillip, about Law Student's exuberance, I'd actually take exuberance any day over lassitude, and I appreciate his/her interest in this discussion.
Law Student, I am not at all an expert on the law as you must have recognised, so forgive me if I cannot provide you with the reassuring technical structure within which you must be accustomed to debating. Like Phillip said, "discretion" [whether good or bad] AFTER the legislation has been passed is of less interest to me than the motives that go into the creation of the piece of legislation. Also I was actually not thinking about the criminal activities of lower level civil servants or gangs of civil servants, I was thinking about criminal activity at the highest level of government where a PM is aware of, enables, authorises criminal activity as leader of the political gang. While I would love to see all PM's doing their jobs under the threat of life imprisonment for such wrongdoing, that was actually not the point I was trying to make. I was using the example of the PM to demonstrate how we should be thinking also about "high level" crime because I am not sure that this Anti-Gang Bill is.
Please bear in mind that although I have read the bill, it has only convinced me that I am badly in need of a discussion of the situation on the ground which prompted its creation.
Apart from criminals who act alone, aren't most crimes committed by gangs? And if there have always been gangs operating at every level of the society from sometimes the Prime Minister right down to the traffickers dropping off human cargo down South, shouldn't some broader, already existing piece of legislation take care of this? I am reading the definition of gangs and gang activity and all that is happening is that my eyebrows are locking horns. Which "gangs" exactly are being targeted by this legislation, the "street gangs" or all gangs? The proposed legislation leaves this wide open when at (2) it states that "it shall not be
necessary to show that a particular gang possesses, acknowledges or is known by any common name, insignia, flag, means of recognition,...when the gang’s existence can be demonstrated by a preponderance of other admissible evidence, but any evidence reasonably tending to show or demonstrate the existence of or membership in a gang shall be admissible in any action or proceedings brought under this Act."
I am not at all reluctant to admit that this proposed legislation leaves me confused. It mentions children being recruited. Why isn't this covered by existing legislation as is prostituting minors under the Children Act? Will this legislation cover the owner of a brothel who allows traffickers to supply his establishment with illegal immigrant sex workers while also bribing the police to look the other way? Is there a difference between a ring, a gang, a cartel?
What if parties are working together but there is no identifiable head? Does a gang have to be a consistent gang or can it be a more fluid association coming together and dispersing as required? Why do we even have to target "gangs" now? Haven't we always gone after gangs/accomplices? Criminal activity is criminal activity whether it is done solo or with others. Doesn't existing legislation already take care of criminal activity?
--Continued below
--Continued from above
ReplyDeleteAs always, there are easy targets and there are protected targets but don't get me wrong. I am not saying that we should not target one group's gangs. I am saying that ALL gangs should be targeted wherever they are to be found in the society.
As a law student, you will of course appreciate that the law can sometimes be a beautiful thing but beauty remains always in the eye of the beholder. I prefer not to talk about race but I have no problem talking about class and power and if legislation is being drafted by a certain class, it will sometimes reflect the biases of that class.
The Music Bill of 1883 [withdrawn after protest] was dangerous enough as a piece of in-your-face, discriminatory legislation against East Indian and African drumming. This Anti-Gang legislation could be seen as being equally suspect because it "appears" not to target any one group in particular but leaves the [paranoid?] reader worried that it is perhaps in the enforcement that the discrimination will be manifested. Sometimes the vague viper that doesn't look you in the eye can have the worst bite.
This is a difficult piece of legislation. We are not the first country to be wrestling with it and as I have not done any research to be able to say exactly what lasting success has been had by the countries which have already passed similar laws, it would be foolish of me to dismiss it as simply faddism or busy work for government.
We have serious problems in this society and criminal activity is at the same time a cause and a result. This legislation is another valiant attempt to curb results while root causes remain. The same arguments that we are hearing in T&T surrounding this legislation are the same arguments that others have had and will continue to have - problems with definitions, scope, constitutionality, the danger of discriminating against targets of certain classes, ethnicities, age groups.
I remain open to discussion. Why do we need another piece of legislation if we have not yet addressed the societal problems which nurture criminals, if we have not addressed the groaning justice system that cannot cope with what is already on its plate and let us not forget the ongoing problem of our abysmal failure in law enforcement.
Thanks as always, Phillip, for your thought-provoking posts and this forum. Thanks Law Student, for your contribution. Whether or not we appreciate it while in the heat of the discussion, these opportunities to freely exchange ideas and concerns are too few in our society. People are deeply, deeply hurt when they are silenced, when they conclude that they have no voice or no voice of any value if there is no one to listen. I wish that competent people would be assigned to really speak with those persons convicted of crimes or those in the communities who appear to be choosing careers as criminals. I strongly believe that a common thread of "powerlessness" will be found running through many of their narratives.
Many of us are surrendered people and I salute all those who stand up for the betterment of this nation to try to arrive at the best possible common ground upon which to proceed.
Blessings
Quote
ReplyDelete"So you need to have:
(1) criminal activity, enterprise, pursuit or undertaking
That's right there at the start. You need to have criminal activity. No crime, no gang-related activity."
In my understanding of the English language the fact that these words are separated by a comma implies that one or more of these may be left out. Therefore 'criminal activity' is not a requirement.
Hopefully I am wrong please prove this.