The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

It is my opinion that Commissioner of Police Clayton Fernander's criticisms of the courts of law granting bail to accused persons (males) are highly detrimental and intrusive as it relates to the role and duties of a Commissioner of Police of the Royal Bahamas Police Force by calling for yet another amendment to the Bail Act.

Obviously, the COP does not understand the constitutionality of the role, existence and purpose of courts of law which essentially are not courts of justice: "Never mistake law for justice. Justice is an ideal, and law is a tool."

The COP ought to be concerned with securing an efficient and effective police force, crime and national security in providing safer communities not in telling the courts what they should/ought to do relative to their admitting accused persons to bail and the amendment to the implementation of the statutory provisions mandated by the Bail Act. It appears that the COP may not fully appreciate the purpose or nature of granting bail by the courts of law as it relates to an accused and the constitutionality of safeguarding one's right to freedom. Some argue that perhaps the only amendment to the Act the legislature may want to consider should be that part of the Act which allows judges to order that accused persons be remanded for their own protection. Whilst this may seemingly be part and parcel of the sacrosanct principle of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, in reality, the decision to remand for protection seems to extinguish the presumption of innocence concept. Surely, if a court has made a decision to remand an accused person for his/her own protection based on an application by that accused person to be admitted to bail, that court must have had some evidence before it that that accused person has violated or is involved in some criminal offence or the reasonable inference thereof in order to decide to remand him for his/her own protection. Should a court be responsible for protecting accused persons by placing further expense burden on taxpayers to provide free boarding and lodging to an accused person? Not sure that that is the purpose or business of a court of law when attempting to uphold the presumption of innocence guaranteed under the Constitution.

Equally disturbing is that the Anglican priest, Reverend Harry Bain, at the church service commemorating the Opening of the Legal Year 2024 admonished the judiciary to listen to the COP and what he has to say about the courts granting bail.

Although the Reverend's sermon was eloquently delivered, the contents of which were thoroughly researched; yet ostensibly heard before and forgotten especially hearing after having a few glasses of wine or whatever libation of choice at the reception immediately held after the pomp and pageantry celebration - none cares to even remember what was said as seems 'same ole same ole.'

The discussion of granting of bail by the courts has been critically discussed ad nauseum for years with some members of the society lambasting the courts without listening to persons who are experienced and qualified to impart what may be the root causes of criminality in our communities. At the opening of the Legal Year 2019, The Tribune newspaper reported the speech given by then acting Chief Justice, the Honorable Justice Vera Watkins when she responded to what she considered “unfair criticisms" of the country's judicial system in granting bail. In The Tribune article, she reminded "those who continue to blame the courts for the country's crime woes that the courts do not create criminals, but society does."... Criminals are created in the homes and societies in which they live."

She went on to say that the focus of blame had shifted from the courts to where it ought to be on "the role of the family in the prevention of crime."

As to the family, it seems we continue to give "a pass" to the women of our country who give birth to these young men who later become criminals, and who in many cases, if not all, become that way because of the abusive behaviour directly or indirectly, whether physical, sexual or mental, towards these young people, particularly males, who in most incidences just want to belong and be loved. If you were to speak with a young male criminal who feels comfortable enough to disclose honestly with you the abuse they went through as a child or children at the whims of their mothers or 'supervised abuse' by their boyfriends whom they bring into the homes, is horrifying yet understanding why they became criminals - they were trained by the 'maternal best'. Although, some blame could be at absentee fathers for not being involved in their children's lives - because of the reality of them not being involved in the upbringing of their children - could they really be blamed for the brutal abuse of them by some of the female mothers have molded these young people into being the criminals they are wreaking havoc on civil society by what some mothers have done to them.

The women's groups together with the Bahamas Christian are usually very silent on inviting these abusive female mothers to desist and cease from abusing their children. Of course, it's apparent that young people do not respect or acknowledge those who are members of the pulpit due to their many ways of a hypocritical life styles so they will rarely listen to them. Someone once said that "children do not listen to adults, but they learn from examples of the adults."

The police have to improve in the way they talk and treat the young men who are not a part of the bourgeois class in our midst - these young men are not stupid or dumb. We see the blatant abuse by the RBPF of our very young boys televised on national television (ZNS TV) on a show called SHOCK TREATMENT. I encountered this TV show by accident and was sickened by the abuse of these officers who obviously were having a 'field day' in physically and mentally abusing these kids being televised for all their peers to see. In the episode I accidentally encountered whilst watching TV, I disgustingly and painfully watched for a few minutes - there was a kid about 12 years old who seemed very intelligent and who was trying to answer the officer as to why he did not listen to his mother. The child tried to explain that he was always blamed for things done by his older sibling who the mother favoured over him and refused to listen to anything he had to say. The officer, obviously not trained in any type of counseling or psychology, didn't listen at all to the child in order to explain to the child what he should do.

In another segment of the show, I watched a police body slam a very young male child to a chain link fence. The name of the show is quite telling - 'shock treatment' was treatment used in the 1900 by officials who felt patients were deemed "crazy" and before the establishment of institutions professionally dealing with persons who may have been perceived as having mental issues. I am surprised that the RBPF or any of its officers have not been charged in a court for abuse pursuant to the Child Protection Act or the Cruelty to Children Act. In most Western world countries this would not have been allowed or the person (s) responsible for hosting such a cruelty to children would have been hauled before the courts. This can't be a way to help these young men become good law-abiding citizens - shaming them on national TV can't be the answer. And, it is not certain that the parents can consent, in law, to allow their minor children to be involved in such an abusive and cruel show.

The police as well as the family environment must do their part. They cannot come on television daring the criminal enterprise "that we coming for you...." When in many cases they are not aware of who may have done the particular crime.

Relatedly, as a possible means to solve the wave of crimes, an immigration expert who observed the immigration laws of The Bahamas and its non-implementation thereof opined that if The Bahamas can resolve its immigration crisis, ninety to ninety-five percent of crimes/murder/traffic violations, etc., would be resolved.

Finally, whilst the above is in no way 'hating on' our police officers, I know that there are some very fine officers on the Force - some whom I have found to be very respectful, courteous and hard-working, and whom have become my very dear friends to my heart. I also do not mean to be offensive to the COP whom I know personally as a very exemplary officer and human being. But the RBPF must work with our young men. I know the Force has come a long way from the 1980s when statements were obtained from suspects by plucking the hairs on a male's testicles until he confesses to a crime he knows nothing of nor was he aware of the place the crime was alleged to have occurred. So that's good!

ELEANOR ALBURY

Nassau,

January 24, 2024.