Opposition parties urge prevention focus in gun crime response

The Democratic Labour Party and Friends of Democracy have backed firm action against violent crime but warned that the Domestic Terrorism Bill must not substitute tougher penalties for investment in prevention, youth intervention and social services.

Responding to the legislation brought to Parliament on Tuesday, DLP spokesperson on legal and home affairs, Corey Greenidge, said that while the party supports holding violent offenders accountable, “accountability and window dressing are not the same thing, and Barbadians deserve to know the difference.” 

Greenidge described the legislation as “the latest in a lengthening line of government bills that reach for harsher sentences while leaving the actual drivers of gun crime in Barbados untouched.”

He said the bill, along with the Bail Act, amendments to the Firearms Act, the Gun Court Act, the Witness Protection Bill and the Criminal Gangs (Prevention and Control) Act, all focused on what happens after a gun is fired. He argued that the government had not placed comparable attention on what happens before.

Greenidge said: “Since during its second term until now with the surge in gun-related violent crimes, this government has not brought forward a single piece of legislation, nor committed a comparable level of public resources, to what happens before that gun is fired.”

He pointed specifically to the social issues lending to the gun problem on the island, including “the recruitment of teenagers into gangs, to the border control and trafficking routes that put illegal firearms on our streets, to the unemployment and disconnection from school that gang leaders exploit, or to [the lack of] a credible framework for rehabilitating young offenders”.

He added: “A justice system built entirely on the back end, with nothing invested on the front end, is not a strategy. It is a public relations campaign with handcuffs attached.”

The DLP spokesman also raised concerns about how the legislation defines domestic terrorism.

“The bill defines ‘domestic terrorism’ without requiring any political, religious or ideological motive,” Greenidge said, arguing that this was an important distinction between terrorism and ordinary violent crime.

Under the proposed definition, “an argument between rival factions that turns into reckless public gunfire can be labelled ‘terrorism’ in the same breath as an act calculated to advance an ideological cause,” he said. 

Greenidge said the DLP was concerned that government had “reached for the most alarming label available rather than the most legally precise one”, suggesting that “a straightforward ‘aggravated firearms offence’ or ‘reckless endangerment with a firearm’ statute would achieve the same sentencing without the collateral consequences that come with the word ‘terrorism’.”

He also questioned the potential wider implications of the designation, arguing: “That word is not cost-free. It is a designation that can shape how our tourism-dependent economy is viewed abroad, how our travel advisories are written, how our reinsurance and risk classifications are set, and how closely our financial system is scrutinised under [Financial Action Task Force]-adjacent frameworks built around counter-terrorism financing.”

The DLP also complained of vague standards in the proposed offence.

“The core of the new offence turns on whether an act was committed ‘recklessly’ or ‘with the intention of causing the public… to fear for their safety’,” Greenidge said, adding: “These are not tight, testable standards, they are elastic phrases that could, on a literal reading, capture an enormous range of conduct.”

He insisted the concern was particularly significant given the severity of the proposed penalties.

“A perpetrator, who is still entitled to equal treatment under the law, who is facing a maximum penalty of death or life imprisonment, is entitled to a law whose limits are set out clearly in black and white, not one that depends on how a charge happens to be framed on a given day.”

FOD spokesperson on criminal justice and legal affairs Anya Forde similarly acknowledged the need for tougher action against serious crime and said that the legislation showed that the government was moving ahead with its objective of strengthening the criminal justice framework and responding more effectively to violent crime.

She noted, “A firm and proportionate response to violent crime is necessary, and serious efforts to ensure that the State has the tools required to protect the public are welcome.”

But Forde insisted that “every new criminal offence and enhancement of criminal penalties should be assessed against the problem it is intended to solve, the gap it is intended to fill and whether it is likely to produce a measurable improvement in public safety.”

Touching on the heavy penalties proposed in the bill, she said it was “particularly important that the legislation operates with clarity, proportionality and appropriate safeguards”.

The attorney-at-law warned that tougher legislation could not be the only response:

“A tough response to crime, without corresponding investment in prevention and social intervention, risks treating the symptoms without addressing the conditions that allow violence to persist. I have said before, and will continue to say, that we cannot punish our way out of social problems.”

Both spokespersons called for greater attention to be paid to solving the social conditions contributing to crime.

Forde suggested that criminal justice reform “must move alongside meaningful reform of our social services, stronger community interventions, support for families and young people, and appropriate responses to mental health, substance misuse, poverty and adverse childhood experiences.”

Greenidge called for “youth intervention and gang-exit programmes, investment in the communities most affected, interdiction at our ports, and a rehabilitation framework inside our prisons that gives offenders a genuine pathway away from violence.”

Stating that the public should expect a justice system that is “swift, effective and impactful”, Forde said steps must be taken to guard against criminalising poverty or social problems requiring other forms of intervention.

“The objective should not simply be to pass more laws. It should be to build a justice and public safety system that protects communities, holds serious offenders accountable, prevents future offending and maintains public confidence in the fairness and effectiveness of the law.”

(JB)