Defending human rights strengthens crime-fighting

THE EDITOR, Madam:

Careful consideration should be given to the warning by Mickel Jackson, executive director of Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) in her Sunday Gleaner column of January 11. It goes to the heart of who we are as a society governed by law.

The historic reduction in murders during 2025 is an achievement worthy of national recognition. Fewer homicides mean fewer grieving families and safer communities, and the security forces must be acknowledged for their role in that progress. However, as Jackson rightly argues, crime reduction cannot come at the expense of accountability, transparency, and respect for human rights.

The troubling surge in fatal shootings by members of the security forces casts a long shadow over these gains. When hundreds of citizens die at the hands of the State in a single year, the issue cannot be dismissed as collateral damage or reduced to simple narratives of “criminals versus police.” Jackson does not deny the dangers officers face, nor does she oppose the lawful use of force in self-defence. Her argument is far more reasonable and necessary: when the State takes a life, it bears the highest burden of justification. That principle is fundamental to democracy.

The excesses of the 1980s and 1990s, and the tragic events of Tivoli Gardens in 2010, remind us how easily public trust can be destroyed when security operations operate without effective oversight. The patterns highlighted by INDECOM — planned police operations accounting for a growing share of fatalities, recurring involvement of specialised units, questionable warrants, and conflicting civilian accounts—are not coincidences. They signal systemic weaknesses that must be addressed before they become entrenched.

Those who criticise JFJ for “focusing on numbers” misunderstand the role of civil society. Patterns are precisely what reveal whether institutions are functioning properly or drifting toward abuse. Advocacy does not pre-empt investigations; it ensures that investigations occur and that their findings lead to reform. Had voices like JFJ remained silent in the past, Jamaica would not have institutions such as INDECOM today.

The call for the urgent deployment of body-worn cameras is both sensible and overdue. They protect honest officers, deter misconduct, and provide clarity when accounts conflict. In an era of rising police-involved fatalities, continued delays are indefensible.

Mickel Jackson’s intervention is not anti-police or anti-state; it is pro-Jamaica. Supporting this position is essential if our hard-won crime reduction is to be sustainable, legitimate, and worthy of public trust.

ROBERT DALLEY