Gang Encounter? Yes? Or No? | Editorial

By Kieron Murdoch | Opinion Contributor

Much has been made of the Prime Minister’s recent meeting with groups of juvenile delinquents and young offenders who call themselves gangs under the names “2Drilly” and “Grays Farm Thugs”.

While many have reservations about these dialogues, we believe it was a good decision to engage in these types of conversations with them, even if it is unconventional.

But let us first examine the reservations we acknowledged when we began. A number of good and right-minded citizens have expressed reservations about these dialogues. Their views should not be ignored.

Many believe these gatherings send the wrong message – a message that crime and violence can be rewarded with sit-downs rather than punishment. Some wonder what the outcome will be.

Some people do not like the fact that the state is being brought to the table to dialogue with those who break the law and disturb the peace. Some say it looks like a concession.

These are all legitimate and reasonable concerns for any right-minded citizen. After all, what kind of society would this be if the rule of law were not upheld? Or if crime was not punished with consequences?

However, we must not forget that we are dealing with juvenile delinquents. That is an important factor. When we are dealing with juveniles, it is our duty to do what we can to understand what is behind their behavior and to investigate whether we can intervene.

This is our first statement about why we think these dialogues were a good move, rather than a bad one: that young people deserve more of our time and effort. Remember, some of these young gang members are still 14 and 15 years old.

Our second proposition is that this kind of dialogue shows young people that they are not unworthy of society’s intervention. If you have ever lived in disadvantaged circumstances, as many of these young people have, you know all too well how easy it is for society to forget you.

This is by no means an excuse to indulge in wanton violence and violence, but too many of our young people have a sense of abandonment towards the society in which they live. Why should they then develop a sense of loyalty to that society, or to their neighbours?

By meeting them with an open mind to understand what drives their behavior, you show them that society is willing to invest in them, if they are willing to take a different path. It may not make all of them change, but if it makes some of them change, then we think there is some benefit.

Coming from the highest office to meet the least privileged sends the right message. What message would have been sent if these young people had been open to meeting, but high officials had said, “No. We will never sit in a room with them. They are scoundrels, not worth our time.”

Our third position is that such a dialogue gives the leader of the country a better understanding of the problem that needs to be addressed.

The government can talk to a hundred social workers, psychologists, sociologists, criminologists and get a hundred different perspectives on what drives juvenile crime and what factors are behind more of our teenage boys coming into conflict with the law. But unless we actually engage in dialogue with those who commit these crimes and engage in this violence, we will never understand them.

In this spirit, we propose that government, in addition to this example of dialogue with these particular youth, use its social service resources to conduct a long-term study of criminality and deviance in our society. Involve the UWI. Involve NGOs.

Interview ex-prisoners, prisoners, juvenile delinquents and their families consistently and collect quantitative and qualitative data on the factors that drive violent crime of various types in Antigua and Barbuda. If a doctor can treat conditions he or she cannot diagnose, how should society respond to criminal violence that has not taken the time to study and understand?

Furthermore, it has not been reported and we have not understood (although we can be corrected) that there were any demands or conditions set by the young people regarding their willingness to engage in dialogue. In such a case, it is more difficult to justify rejecting or avoiding the possibility of dialogue. That is our fourth argument.

If, for example, one of these gangs of youths had threatened more violence or lawbreaking if they were not listened to, then we could understand that a tougher stance would be taken, not to give in to demands made under threat of violence or lawlessness. But it was not – as we understand it, and as has been reported – a demand from these youths, but a request, or an expressed willingness.

To be fair, we have not been able to ascertain how the first approach came about – whether the prime minister publicly declared his openness to dialogue, or whether one of these groups expressed their desire to speak. In either case, provided that the state and its representatives were not brought to the table by the threat of violence or lawlessness or as a ransom to secure the end of violence or lawlessness, then we see no problem with honest dialogue.

Our fifth proposition is that meeting these young people for dialogue, in our judgment, does not detract from the investigative work of the police, nor does it provide amnesty for committed violations of the law. At least, it has not been reported that way.

No one said that the Prime Minister met with them to give them a safe pass and guarantee that they would never face justice for the crimes they committed in the past.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that the police could still arrest some of these youths for specific offences if their investigations lead them in that direction. If the government had approached the meeting with the intention of legally exonerating those present from possible crimes that were still under investigation, we at antigua.news would certainly raise our voices, along with others in this country, in collective disapproval.