The Tribune

By PACO NUNEZ

Tribune News Editor

SO, trying to kill someone can be considered a big deal in the Bahamas after all.

Last week, the Commissioner of Police was quoted as saying certain less significant infractions – for example, attempted murder and attempted armed robbery – will no longer be counted in the “major crime” statistics.

Their inclusion was making the rate of serious crime look too high, and causing Bahamians “too much distress”, reports said.

But before anyone had a chance to cry cover-up, Minister Bell quickly stepped in to clarify.

The news reports got it wrong. The commissioner was misunderstood: it is not the crimes themselves, but rather the entire category of major crime which needs to be excluded.

Mr Bell said: “Now, when we gather information it is broken down in broad categories like crime against the person, murder, armed robbery, rape and incest.

“We will not just take these categories, including crimes against property, housebreaking and stolen vehicles, and break them down into major and minor depending on what is involved and the specifics of the case.

“We have to further break down the statistics. But all of the information will be released to the media. We aren’t hiding anything. We are just grouping it differently, breaking them down into sub-categories so you will be able to see everything better.”

So, the aim is to clarify, rather than obscure, the overall crime picture according to Mr Bell.

Later this week, when the first of the “new” statistics are released, we will be able to decide for ourselves if this is the case.

Still, to the cynics among us, it appears the move could be at least partially motivated by the desire to separate the murder rate, which has declined slightly, from armed robberies, which continue to rise – thereby giving a public relations boost to the government’s crime fighting effort.

Certainly, it’s easy to see why keeping attempted murders away from actual killings would be useful here. It’s terribly inconvenient to have those encouraging numbers messed up by all the people who were shot, stabbed or bludgeoned in an attempt at murder, but who happened not to die (yet).

It is interesting therefore that Mr Bell chose to add, without prompting: “Crime is down. The murder rate is down. That shows Urban Renewal is working.”

Even so, regardless of what motivated the change, if what Mr Bell says is true and we really have more fully “broken down” statistics, everyone will now have a chance to classify major crime as they see fit.

You might, for example, want to add up all the shootings and stabbings, irrespective of fatality.

It is less easy to see a possible bright side to some of the other recent changes in police procedure as regards the release of information.

Several months ago, it came to light that a spree of rapes had taken place in east and west Nassau over several weeks without the police issuing an official warning.

Commissioner Greenslade said the rationale was to protect victims from a repeat attack and maintain the integrity of the investigation. He said police quietly warned neighbours of the victims to be on the alert.

But, some of those neighbours denied ever being warned and there was outrage at the notion that those already attacked should be protected at the expense of those yet to be targeted.

Nor was this the only crime that the police failed to report to the press.

Just last week, a 37-year-old man was sentenced to four years in prison for attempting to smuggle $2 million worth of heroin from Central America through Nassau.

His trial was the first the media ever heard of the matter, though drug-related arrests have long been a feature of the daily crime report.

And, when 18 Brazilians were detained in connection with an alleged human smuggling operation originating in Panama, it was confirmed to The Tribune by the Director of Immigration only after the matter was leaked to us by sources. The police had said nothing.

Again, were I a conspiracy theorist, I might consider it significant that these matters came to light at the very same time Minister of Financial Services and Investments Ryan Pinder was in Brazil, touting the “exciting” possible business links with that country – and the very same week Minister of Tourism Obie Wilchcombe praised the new air link with Latin America via Panama, saying: “Those markets are strong, and because the world has shifted this way we want to take advantage of it, we want to be in place because you know in two years you have the World Cup and then the Olympics in Brazil. We would be foolish not to capitalise on it now.”

Then there is the new policy of reporting crimes to the press, but withholding certain details.

No longer does an armed robbery happen at such-and-such an address; now it happens at “an establishment on Market Street” or at “a location in eastern New Providence”.

No doubt the police’s defence would again be the protection of victims, but it’s hard to see how the tactic could be helpful to their efforts to bring criminals to justice – at the end of the day, the ultimate form of security for victims.

The police are constantly asking for anyone who knows something about a crime to call them immediately, but how many people might have valuable information but don’t realise it?

A scenario: My car is damaged by another vehicle speeding recklessly away from a gas station. I happen to catch the licence plate number, but the damage is minor and I don’t bother calling the police.

Now, if I hear on the news that the very same gas station was robbed at the very same time, I might put two and two together and call 919. But maybe not if I hear that “an establishment in the central district” was targeted.

Were I a suspicious person, this new policy could make me slightly worried about the new crime statistics.

With the media unable to keep its own independent record of what happened where, how can we be sure no one in the Police Force has taken it upon themselves to change a few numbers here and there, in an effort to obscure what you might call certain politically meaningful realities.

In an earlier Insight, it was argued that certain elements in the governing PLP are striving for the power to “invent reality” by exerting control over many of the elements that form public opinion – the broadcast media, the labour movement, the church.

In this context, and especially given the emotive nature of the crime issue, would it not be reasonable to assume some politician will try to exert similar control over someone in the police?

What do you think?

Email questions or comments to pnunez@tribunemedia.net or join the conversation at www.tribune242.com/opinion/insight/