Crime and punishment

    This is part 2 of a 4 part series on the implications of marijuana on our society

Our present stance on cannabis has created a black market intent on fulfilling demand that is consuming our island and causing our crime rates to soar.  Further we seem intent on attacking the problems at the surface while ignoring the root causes.  Even worse we maintain a punishment scheme for users which outweighs the actual crime.  It risks taking otherwise good people and turning them towards crime and effectively punishes those who are self medicating or are victims of abuse that should actually be seeking help.  It makes little sense that crime is our great worry and yet we still hold a stance that makes things worse and not better.  Perhaps it is time we revisit this decision and figure out if there are ways to discourage use but not allow it to get so out of hand we create worse problems in the process.

Cannabis prohibition has created a black market rivaling that which which we saw in the US in the ‘20s with alcohol prohibition.  Gangs capitalized on a nascent demand for alcohol and found ways to supply it at great profit.  These profits gave rise to gangsters who, fueled by alcohol smuggling profits, branched out to other areas of crime.  It was not long before profits were so lucrative gangs felt it necessary to protect their interests.  Guns and gang wars proliferated until petty thieves felt the need to equip and protect themselves and the incidents of gun crimes rose to startling prominence.  Does this sound familiar?

Contrary to popular belief, those smoking cannabis aren’t the true problem for our society, it’s those who sell and distribute for profit.  Yet the more we ‘crack down’, the higher the profits go.  The higher the profits, the more stake criminal elements have in its distribution meaning people are more anxious to ‘protect’ themselves and their interests.  Thus we see more guns on the island which filters out to others not dealing drugs who now feel they need guns to protect themselves as well.  So now we’re seeing increasing incidents of gun related violence and Bermuda descending further and further into anarchy.  It is a vicious cycle that spirals ever further down unless we do something real to stop the problems closer to the root.

We need to recognize and deal with the problems at their core.  Inherently individuals are turning to cannabis regardless of laws against it.  They do so for recreational purposes, they do so to self medicate or they do so out of psychological addiction.  The recreationalists are going to do it as long as it the rewards outweigh the risks and really, recreationalists aren’t our problem.  Those turning to cannabis to self medicate or suffer from addiction are a problem as they should be seeking proper help but instead could be scared away or reluctant to do so.  Thus demand never changes, we don’t solve the root problems and profits for smugglers and distributors continue to rise, especially as we ‘crack down’ on supply.

Further we are intent on maintaining a punishment scheme for users which outweighs the actual crime.  It is so bad there is a rather sick joke around the island that you’re more likely to be punished worse for smoking a spliff than you are for killing someone.  This is the perception people hold on our streets, that people are more likely to get away with murder than they are with using cannabis.  One act has severe consequences for our society, the other does not.  Is this the message we truly want to be sending?  Where are our priorities?   

It is rather shocking that an individual caught with a small amount of cannabis can be given a criminal record and black listed from travelling to the US.  Sure the argument stands that an individual should understand and accept the consequences of their actions but the punishment is extreme.  The result?   You may well be an otherwise upstanding citizen who breaks no other laws and suddenly you’re marked.  You could face travel restrictions limiting your ability to get training abroad or have a job that requires travel.  You could face discrimination with regards to employment, making it hard for you to have a job.  You could become more likely to give up on society and turn towards crime.  All this for a crime that is about as damaging to others as jaywalking.  It does not make sense.

We are fueling crime with our policies and seem intent on ignoring the root causes while tackling the low hanging fruits.  Our present stance on cannabis has created a black market that is causing our crime rates to soar.  Further we’re only attacking the problems at the surface while maintaining a punishment scheme that outweighs the crime.  We need to focus on actually solving problems, not paying lip service to them.  It makes little sense that as crime is our great worry we still hold a stance that makes things worse and not better.  Perhaps it is time we revisit this decision and figure out if there are ways to discourage use but not allow it to get so out of hand we create worse problems in the process.

Just Say Know

This is part 1 of a 4 part series on the implications of marijuana on our society

As the marijuana debate has been rehashed there is little doubt that people will sensationalize various misunderstandings as they debate the issue.  It is important as with any issue that we fully educate ourselves such that we understand what we’re dealing with and don’t prejudge based upon hearsay.  For those interested I did take a rather useful course in university on drugs and behavior which opened my eyes to many of the misconceptions surrounding drugs and their use.  Drugs are actually much more widely spread than many realize including being contained in simply things like tea and coffee (caffeine) as well as chocolate.  Other substances are considered by many to have drug like effects (sugar) and yet some are acceptable while others are not.  It is important we aim to fully understand drugs and their impact so I thought I’d do a little research into drugs, marijuana especially.

It is interesting to note that marijuana, it’s active ingredient THC especially is not lethal.  The lethal dose of THC (the active ingredient in cannabis) amounts to about 40,000 times the recreational dose (ie, they pumped THC into the blood of rats to the point where it diluted their blood enough to kill them).  By comparison, the lethal dose of nicotine is the equivalent weight of a nickel.

Drug consumption was initially criminalized in the early 1900s in the US and Canada as part of a movement to restrict drug use amongst minorities (Blacks, Hispanics and Asians).  Prior to that time consumption of drugs such as cocaine were widely accepted (Coca-cola originally contained cocaine), was an activity undertaken by the elite members of society and was actually endorsed by individuals such as Queen Victoria, Pope Leo XIII and Pope Saint Pius X.   Indeed cocaine in the form of the coca leave was used by native South Americans for centuries without ill effects.  It wasn’t until the Spanish arrived, extracted the active ingredient in pure form and began consuming it recklessly that it became an issue.

Similarly marijuana has been used for longer than there are records.  It has been shown to have significant health effects, to be less detrimental than other legalized drugs (eg, cigarettes and alcohol) and yet still is demonized as the most evil thing going.  Quite unfortunately such demonization occurs at the detriment of society as we see individuals consuming it anyway, those who abuse it too afraid to seek proper help, a surging criminal element surrounding its production and supply and ongoing sensationalizing of inaccurate information.

Indeed one of the largest arguments against marijuana is that it ‘makes people crazy’ however there is not conclusive proof of such.  For those who have heard that marijuana increases the risks of Schizophrenia they may have misinterpreted the reports.  Yes, the initial analysis of Swedish military conscripts and subsequent reports can be downright scary.  However, subsequent reanalysis of it and similar studies have only conclusively shown that cannabis increases the risk of Schizophrenia and similar psychosis related disorders for those already at risk and has not be proven for those not already at risk.

For those who view sites like Schizophrenia.com to scare themselves to death with regards to the risks it is worth noting that marijuana is not listed as the only risk factor.  Indeed they report up to a 4x increased risk of Schizophrenia for emigrating to a new country.  Further having an unstable home life as a child and social adversity increased risks by 2.7X. So too living in a urban environment increases risks by 3X.  Further you can look beyond to other scientific studies such as this one which suggests alcohol is associated with an 8x risk of psychotic experiences in men, 3x in women.  By all intents and purposes by these suggestions Bermuda must be filled with crazies and yet we’re not.  Thus is it worth sensationalizing marijuana reports while ignoring other reports of similar risks?

Further we can look to places that have moved to decriminalize marijuana to understand the implications.  This Australian study concluded the incidence of schizophrenia has not risen with the explosion of cannabis use but instead appeared to trigger it in those already at risk.   Yet another Australian study confirmed this.  By comparison we can use cigarette smoking and lung cancer as a guide where as cigarette smoking skyrocketed so too did lung cancer.  A similar trend has not been seen with cannabis use.

As suggested, it is worthwhile fully investigating and examining an issue before making a judgment as far too many jump to unnecessary conclusions.  The criminalization of marijuana has nascent undesirable effects on our society that could be prevented or circumvented if we adequately reviewed the issues from a fair and independent view point.  Are there risks with smoking Marijuana? Certainly.  However, there are risks in just about everything we do in life and thus it is necessary to weigh the risks and choose wisely.  Ultimately telling people they can’t do it does not change consumption and if anything unnecessarily punishes individuals more so than the act itself.  As with anything it is rather easy to sensationalize the risks, however at some at some point you either are consumed by them or accept that risks are a part of living and just live your life. 

---

An excellent resource I found for much of the information contained here was this post which is rather comprehensive, in-depth and views things from both sides with evidence.

Another excellent resource on the history of drugs and policies in effect around the world is the report produced by the King County Bar Association, something I’ve covered before.

Disappointing double standard

The announcement that the expat with a cannabis conviction has been granted a work permit because of his importance to the international business community is disappointing.  It simply does not send the right message as it continues along the lines we have increasingly seen lately that if you’re important enough the laws don’t apply to you.  That isn’t a good direction for us to be headed in.

Now, not to be seen as hypocritical it should be noted that this blog has numerous times called out against our rather ridiculous policies that ensure individuals caught with small amounts of cannabis are handed punishments that brand them for life and restrict their ability to travel.  In this case it would make more sense to change the law for all than to let one individual slide simply because he’s important. 

Making special exceptions just leads to distrust of the system as a whole and raises further questions of why anyone should bother following the law if those at the top have no respect for it?  It is something you see increasing evidence of as more and more people are more inclined to commit small infractions they wouldn’t have done in the past.  A great example is the incredible rise in the number of people who run stoplights.

Cherry Picking Crime Statistics

I'd like to point out an excellent letter to the editor by Guilden Gilbert Jr. who notes how the UBP have cherry picked crime statistics from the last 8 years rather than the 10 years of data that have been available.

Mr. Dunkley seems to arbitrarily choose to compare the 2006 crime numbers to those of 1999, instead of going back as far as the statistics go on the Bermuda Police Service web site (www.bermudapolice.bm) which go back to 1996, the PLP did not become the Government until 1998.

In 1996 there were 350 total crimes of violence and within that number were six murders and six attempted murders. In 2006 the total crimes of violence was 305 with three murders and two attempted murders. Between 1997 and 2006 the total number of violent crimes did not exceed 336, which means that the highest annual number of violent crimes occurred under the UBP watch. Mr. Dunkley says that the burglary rate seem to be at the highest ever, yet in 1996 there were 223 burglaries and in 2006 there were 37. In fact in 1997, still under the UBP watch, there were 299 burglaries, which is the highest recorded. Also 1997 saw the highest total break-in offences with 1,241 compared to 2006 with 1,142.

Mr. Dunkley states that robberies are at their highest rate in 10 years, again he is incorrect as according the Bermuda Police statistics 10 years ago, 1997, there were 429 total crimes of stealing and in 2006 there were 263. The highest recorded number is 512 in 1999, which means that robbery/theft has actually declined overall in the last 10 years.

Nice work Guilden.  Glad to see others using statistics to back up their arguments and point out cases of cherry picking the numbers.  While evaluating the number of police officers he notes:

there are currently about 450 police officers in Bermuda or one police officer for every 149 people. If the number of police officers Bermuda has on a per capita basis existed in any other jurisdiction that jurisdiction would be labeled a police state. New York City has a population of approximately 8.2 million and a police force of nearly 39,000 officers or one officer for every 210 people. The United Kingdom has a population of 60.7 million and a police force of 139,000 officers or 1 officer for every 437 people.

Interesting information, to which Guilden asks "Is it not the job of the Commissioner of Police to make sure the officers under his charge are properly deployed to actively prevent crime?"  Given the number of police officers in comparison to other jurisdictions, this is a question that should be explored in greater detail.

However, Guilden also asks "Has the PLP Government not given the Police Service a healthy budget?", to which I have dedicated some time researching into what various individuals have said and the conclusion presented was that many believe the Police service is short on overall resources.  Beyond this there was also the detail that he pay contract for Police Officers expired in 2004 and has yet to be negotiated.

So, while I agree with Guilden with regards to the UBP cherry picking the numbers and the questions of whether there may already be enough police officers, I still have my doubts with regards to healthy funding.

Policing resource shortage continued

Continuing evaluation of Senator Burch's desire to have the governor delegate control of the police force raises today's question of whether the responsibilities Senator Burch already has over the police force are being managed effectively.

An earlier piece concerning Policing in Bermuda noted:

Sen. Burch has made numerous calls for the Governor to do more to address Bermuda's policing difficulties or hand over control, suggesting that he cannot do his job effectively because the Governor "is solely responsible for the Bermuda Police Service".  Is the issue with policing a lack of control?

Acting Police Commissioner Roseanda Young suggests that it is actually government, not the governor, who is responsible for the number of officers on the island, along with recruiting, training and equipment.  That due to the resources available, response times of police officers improved as a result of realignment in terms of shifting officers locations of patrol and start times, not the addition of resources. (emphasis added)

Interestingly, in today's Royal Gazette Superintendent Michael Desilva suggested that the aim of recent restructuring in the Bermuda Police Service (BPS) was to better use the limited resources the BPS has at its disposal.

"Much of the feedback to date from our officers centres around operational logistical issues, including the need for more vehicles. The perennial staff shortage in the BPS is also an issue." said Supr. Desilva

"However, given the shrinking resource pool, the BPS does not — and should not — deviate from its training standards."

(emphasis added)

Yesterday's Royal Gazette quoted Assistant Police Commissioner as having addressed the islands drug problems by suggesting

"There is a significant problem which clearly outstrips the resources Police and other agencies have to combat it effectively."

(emphasis added)

More recently, via a police officer who wrote in to the www.politics.bm blog suggested:

"[There aren't] enough cars for the new CAT patrol units, or the extra people in the station during the overlap created by the new shift system"

"The people of Bermuda surely aren't aware that the police pay contract expired in Oct 2004. This is supposed to be a three year contract expiring in Oct 2007. They haven't even come to the table yet."

So, in recap, we have the Acting Police Commissioner, the Assistant Police Commissioner, the Superintendent along with an off the record police officer who are all suggesting that lack of resources are a core issue as to why we have inadequate policing.  Yet none have supported Senator Burch's claim.

So, here are the questions to ask yourself. 

One, why is it that our Premier feels it is important that he has a motorcade of 3 police officers when we have such shortages of resources which are causing increasing thefts, break-ins and violence? 

Two, if the government is ultimately responsible for resource allocation, as Acting Commissioner Young suggests, why do we have a wide segment of our police service suggesting that resource allocation is inadequate? 

Three, how is it possible or even acceptable that the police pay contract still has not been negotiated in what is approaching three years?

Four, if the government cannot adequately manage the responsibilities that it has now with regards to the police service, how could it be expected to manage additional responsibilities?

Are the responsibilities held by government over the police force being managed effectively or should the governor delegate greater control of the police force to the government?

Solution to the drugs problem: more power or more resources?

According to Assistant Police Commissioner Bryan Bell, the solution to the drugs problem is to give police more power.  This while former police officers are suggesting that many of the issues stem from major reductions in the narcotics departments and less officers walking the beat.  Do these issues continue to point to a lack of overall resources in terms of manpower and problems with the structure of the Bermuda Police Service as suggested by former officers?

According to Mr. Bell

"A lot of drug dealers' activities are run on cash. They have numerous ways of developing their wealth and attempting to legitimize their assets.

"One of the areas of discussion we are having at the moment is looking at a change in the legislation to provide for what is known as civil forfeiture of criminal assets.

"It basically means you can go after someone who you can show to the courts of having gained their money from criminal means without having to necessarily convict them of a criminal offence.

"It's done in the UK at the moment with the asset confiscation agency."

Interesting.  Googling asset confiscation agency turns up little.  What actually is turned up is the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) which, in June 2006 BBC News reported it as 'failing' and in January  of 2007 it was reported as abolished through it's amalgamation with the Serious Organized Crime Agency (SOCA).  Reading these reports gives a clear indication that the largest failure of the ARA was that it cost far more to run than what it ultimately recovered and that court processes were arduous as authorities fought to seize criminal assets.  Would such an agency have success for Bermuda in curbing drug dealing as suggested by Mr. Bell?  What impact would this have on our courts to have a rise in even more cases and would this proposal ultimately be worth the cost?

Another suggestion came from Former National Drugs Control Minister Wayne Perinchief, who recommended that we copy Britain's Anti-social Behavior Act to enable a speedy crackdown on homes used as drug hangouts.  But Mr. Bell interestingly suggests anti-social behavior order (ASBO) laws are extremely bureaucratic and involved hours of work before they could be put in place.

"The idea that you just wheel someone into the court and get an ASBO is not what happens in reality.

"Many councils have to employ lawyers just to maintain ASBO's and the actual number taken out are still relatively small. "

How would an ARA have a different impact if it were to result in similar needs with regards to courts and bureaucracy?  Other criticisms of ASBO's include the lack of anonymity offered to young offenders and that because ASBO cases are heard in civil courts, complaints do not have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but merely judged on the balance of probability.

Former police officers interviewed by the Mid Ocean News contest that current issues with the Bermuda Police Service stem from restructuring that have "reduced the narcotics and criminal investigations departments to half their size and removed community officers from its roster completely", an "absence of an overall strategy for policing the island" along with recruiting and training problems.  All of which point to issues with regards to the ability to recruit and train manpower resources both locally and abroad. 

What is the solution to the drugs problem?  Should we be giving police more legislative power through the introduction of an Assets Recovery Agency or Anti-social Behaviour Orders or are these issues stemming from a lack of resources and problems with the structure of the Bermuda Police Service?

Policing in Bermuda

Is very confusing.  What is the problem?  Is it lack of control?  Is it lack of resources?  Is it politicking? 

Sen. Burch has made numerous calls for the Governor to do more to address Bermuda's policing difficulties or hand over control, suggesting that he cannot do his job effectively because the Governor "is solely responsible for the Bermuda Police Service".  Is the issue with policing a lack of control?

Acting Police Commissioner Roseanda Young suggests that it is actually government, not the governor, who is responsible for the number of officers on the island, along with recruiting, training and equipment.  That due to the resources available, response times of police officers improved as a result of realignment in terms of shifting officers locations of patrol and start times, not the addition of resources.

Government MP Ashfield DeVent lashed out at the apparent response time improvement by contending that drug dealing occurs around the clock in his Pembroke seat.  He suggests "A few months ago when Police made a bigger presence in my area I was the first to commend them." yet had also suggested that there were "people complaining that there was too great a Police presence".  "Now I don't see the Police and the drug activity is 24/7 — it's in broad daylight." he contends.  Is this due to the restructuring of resources to other areas?  Does it point to an overall lack of resources as officers must be moved from patrolling one area to another in order to cope?

Mr. DeVent suggests, "In regard to response times I would like to see the figures. There's a perception among many people that they are not all that quick."  But he then suggests that many residents don't bother calling the Police because they feel nothing would happen.  If that is the case, why does he believe improved response times would make a difference?  Has it not been previously suggested that drug dealers post lookouts and scatter if the police arrive?  Thus, would response times make any difference for his constituency in comparison to the patrols that once occurred before resources were restructured?

If the issue isn't so much about response times as it is the number of officers on patrol, does that fall under the responsibility of government as suggested by Acting Commissioner Young? 

Mr. DeVent has previously supported Sen. Burch's call for the governor to relinquish powers over the police suggesting the Governor has ultimate responsibility for the Police service under the Constitution so must be held accountable for its failings. “The buck has to stop with him,” he said.   Yet earlier in the piece he suggests that government controls the budget and how much taxpayer money is allocated to fund the service so doesn't that mean the literal buck stops with the government and not the governor?  Do resources not equate to funding and does this raise the question of whether it is adequate?

Is this a question of the government needing control over the police force or is it one of a lack of resources available for police perform it's job adequately?  Is it possible the government is under-funding and under-resourcing the police service yet contesting that it isn't doing it's job effectively?  

Policing in Bermuda is very confusing.  What is the problem?  Is it lack of control?  Is it lack of resources?  Is it politicking? 

Does our island's drug policy breed criminals?

Today's Gazette outlines an article entitled "Don't put me on the stop list" about a 22 year old Bermudian youth who was found with .4 grams of marijuana on his person.

Possession of marijuana is against the law, however the potential punishment of posession heavily outweighs the risks of use. 

Lets assume this individual had been given a criminal record and put on the "stop list".  This means he would effectively be barred from travelling to the US and potentially other countries.  Should he care to further his education, his options for doing so would be limited.  Should he care to take a job he would also be limited to one that does not include trips off island.

Certainly, Magistrate Tokunbo is free to ask the question of "Why didn’t you think about that before?" However,  do people still smoke cigarettes despite knowing that they are more likely to get cancer?  Do people still eat too much sugar despite knowing that it can give them diabetes.  To use such a justification for such harsh sentences is not a solution to our island's drug problems.  In all reality, it won't discourage people from doing what they're going to do anyway simply because they won't have to deal with the consiquences until much later.

If our citizens are put on the stop list, can it effectively end their ability to further themselves as productive members of society?  Having already broken the mould and ruined their lives, what stops them from asking themselves why they should not delve further into criminal activity? 

If you're an individual already on the stop list, what further have you got to lose?  Are our prisons not already compared to being a club med for drug addicts as some people claim given how freely it is rumored to be able to attain drugs there.  With such harsh punishments for an act that does more to hurt the individual then it does society, are we encouraging those who briefly step off the beaten path into a life of crime?

Maybe there is a reason why we're in the top 10 list for imprisonment and perhaps it's time we started cracking down on the causes of our problems rather then the effects?   Such as by asking the question of why these individuals are turning to drugs in the first place?