Shirley Richards, Contributor

The current debate regarding the six proposed bits of 'crime legislation' is a classic illustration of the tension between the concepts of 'order' and that of 'freedom of the individual'. Establishing and maintaining law and order in a nation is clearly one of the fundamental purposes of government. In fact, some would argue that a government which cannot maintain law and order ought not properly to call itself a government!

At the same time, it is important to recognise that freedom of the individual will be threatened when order becomes the primary pursuit of government. When that happens there is the danger of the state becoming our oppressive master instead of being our devoted servant.

The story is told of a group of Jamaican law students at the Cave Hill Campus in the late 1970s who was at the time listening to a lecture on 'law in society'. The lecturer, a non-Jamaican, was expounding the concepts of the 17th century British philosopher Thomas Hobbes. She ended her class with the well-known quotation from Hobbes that life in a condition of mere nature would be "poor, nasty, brutish and short". To the great annoyance of the Jamaican students she slipped in a last sentence stating to the effect that this is what many say that life in the "fair country of Jamaica has become!" Predictably, nationalistic pride arose in the chests of every Jamaican present causing them all to exit the lecture theatre immediately with comments of "How dare her!", "Out of order!"

Now, 30 years later, many in this group of lawyers have to admit ruefully that the words of that lecturer have been fulfilled - life in Jamaica is many times brutish and short. The anguish and grief currently being experienced by scores of Jamaican families as we go about the business of burying our dead is indescribable. Additionally, there are many who have been maimed for life, some confined to a wheelchair, all because of the gun.

Maybe the most-far-reaching bit of legislation being proposed to deal with the crisis is the amendment to Section 3 of the Bail Act, which provides that where certain offence are concerned "bail should be granted to a defendant only if the defendant satisfies the court that bail should be granted".

It's bad enough that a proposed minimum period of 60 days has to elapse before a bail application will be heard, but even after that minimum period a defendant will still have to satisfy the court that bail should be granted!

This is totally antithetical to the current situation where generally it is the state which now has to satisfy the court that bail should not be granted. Just as hard cases make bad law, actions taken in extreme situations such as that which currently faces us can set bad precedents. One would therefore want strongly to urge the Joint Select Committee to steer the Government away from all the present proposals to amend the Bail Act, which act in its current form already makes sufficient provisions for the concerns of the police.

But what other form of action can the Government take which would assist in dealing with our dire circumstances? Here are a few suggestions to be added to the other suggestions made by others: