This report by Amnesty International on the public security crisis in Jamaica forms part of a body of work by national and international organizations working on the crisis and its human rights implications. The research for this report was conducted by visiting Jamaica and its inner-city communities of Kingston, St Andrew and St Catherine during 2007 and speaking to a wide range of people from civil society and people holding positions of public office. During that research Amnesty International found:

There is a public security crisis in Jamaica and the state is failing to effectively provide human security to its population, especially to those most vulnerable to crime and violence, namely people living in poverty in inner-city communities.

An unspoken tolerance of policing based on strong prejudice and stigmatization, excessive use of force, extrajudicial executions and corruption among certain members of the police force that reinforces a circle of violence for people living in poverty in socially excluded communities.

A lack of scrutiny and accountability of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) against allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Entrenched impunity for those human rights violations leaving the victims with no access to justice and a lack of progress in overcoming this longstanding problem.

Some members of the JCF resort to unlawful killings to restrain individuals they believe pose a threat to the community. In many instances officers also commit unlawful killings for no apparent reason, out of negligence or for reasons of political factions. There is little evidence to support the claim that many killings occur in so-called confrontations with gang members.

The failure to provide representative, responsive and accountable human rights-based policing to people living in poverty in socially excluded communities has left a vacuum that is filled by gangs.

Prejudiced attitudes amongst public officials towards people living in inner cities encouraging a stigmatization of these people as somehow worthless and deserving of their fate, and perpetuating their insecurity.

Large disparities in respect and fulfilment of the economic, social and cultural rights of people in inner city communities and other Jamaicans that suggest neglect of these communities.

Police officers trying to make improvements in respect for human rights and to support reform faced various obstacles, even threats to their life.

Welcoming statements from the new government to harness efforts to overcome this longstanding crisis.

While national homicide rates have risen fairly consistently during the last decades in Jamaica, this report contends that increased levels of violence have been largely concentrated in areas of social exclusion underlining the state’s failure of its due diligence obligation to protect these people from violence coming from criminal gangs or reluctance to ensure their effective human security.

This report also identifies the stigmatization and excessive use of force by, and corruption within, the police forces, which effectively exacerbate the violence these communities suffer and constitute a violation of the obligation to respect human rights.

The Jamaican leadership has recognized its own responsibility in this crisis, through the creation and perpetuation of a political system that relies on gang leaders to gain electoral support, corruption and tolerance of organized crime.

Finally, the report argues that Jamaica does not have a long term comprehensive and effective public security policy and this is permitting violence to increase and is putting everyone at risk, including the police. This negligence is not the result of lack of understanding of the problem or lack of feasible solutions, but lack of political will and leadership to overcome the situation.

In its recommendations Amnesty International calls on the Jamaican government to create a comprehensive public security plan for the protection of human rights; to immediately implement a programme for the reduction and prevention of homicides and police killings in inner-cities; and to immediately reduce excessive use of force by the JCF.

Amnesty International calls on other governments to support and promote the creation and implementation of the public security plan for the protection of human rights; assist the Jamaica Government in the immediate implementation of a programme to reduce and prevent homicides and police killings in inner-cities and the excessive use of force by the JCF; help ensure prioritization of reform of the JCF and the justice system; assist the Jamaica Government and other Caribbean governments to effectively address the public security crisis as a region and to cooperate in effectively sharing expertise and resources; and, to promote the principles of an Arms Trade Treaty to establish common standards on the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

“The gun violence was not that bad anymore in my community. Then it just suddenly started back. I think because of the elections. But I think they use the election time as a weapon... The ‘big guy’, the crime organizer that is the biggest threat to the community because they send out the young ones to shoot. Anything they order you have to do it because you fear your life.

On 29 September 2007, around 1am I heard four gunshots that woke me up. So I got up. Some guys from the other side of the street fired shots at me and shout me “labourite^¹, we will kill you all”. I was not hurt by the gunmen and they left. I told to my 19 year-old son André, who was with friends in a corner shop, to come back home because it was dangerous. Any time men fire shots, the same type of police show up. I don’t know if they work with the gunmen, but the same corrupt police show up. André said he didn’t do anything so he didn’t have to get up. I walked away and heard my son screaming ‘why are you beating me?’ I ran in his direction and I heard a woman [say] ‘Lord, look how the police killed the little boy’. André was lying in a pool of blood and four police were standing next to him. He was conscious. I carried him into the police jeep and told them to take him to the hospital. There was a gunshot in his leg and another in his hand. The police told me I couldn’t come in the jeep with him because I had blood on me and there was no space. When I got to Public Hospital, André was dead. The doctor told me he had wounds all over his body: in his leg, on his belly, one in the centre of his stomach and one in his back. When I left him he only had two wounds. I know they murdered him. What really hurt me is that they took him and placed him in the jeep and pumped a hole right in his stomach.”

Mr Philbert Thomas, Grants Pen, Kingston, October 2007

Jamaica has one of the highest rates of violent crime in the world. In 2005, 1,674 people were the victims of homicide – a record high in a country with 2.7 million inhabitants.^² This is not a sudden crisis, but follows a steady increase in violent crime over recent years.^³ The use of guns to commit murder has also increased.^⁴

The main body responsible for policing in Jamaica is the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF). However, far from protecting people from violent crime the JCF is contributing to the escalation of violence. Jamaica has one of the highest rates of police killings in the Americas. In 2007 alone, 272 people were fatally shot by JCF officers.^⁵There are no official figures available on the numbers of police officers killed in the line of duty in the same period.^⁶In many cases the killings by JCF officers may have resulted from the legitimate use of force. However, in those cases where there was strong evidence that people were victims of extrajudicial executions,^⁷flawed investigations, corruption and a failing justice system guaranteed impunity for the officers involved.

Many of those responsible for violent crime are not brought to justice because of failings in the justice system. The number of murders investigated and solved by the police is extremely low.^⁸ Prosecution and conviction rates are also extremely poor.^⁹

Surveys have shown that most Jamaicans believe that crime and violence are the country’s biggest problems.^¹⁰ However, they are problems that affect different parts of the population in very different ways. A recent United Nation’s (UN) report found that the great majority of victims of violent crime live in disadvantaged inner-city areas. ^¹¹ Many people living in these communities experience disproportionately high levels of unemployment, insecurity of housing tenure, limited water supply and limited access to electricity.^¹²

These communities have suffered years of state neglect. The vacuum left by the state has been occupied by gang leaders who control many aspects of life. Gang leaders (known as “dons”) “collect taxes” from local businesses (through extortion); allocate jobs (both in the legal and illegal sectors); distribute food, school books and “scholarships”; and dispense punishment on those who transgress gang rules.

Consecutive governments and political leaders have helped create and maintain the environment in which gang violence has flourished. Gang control is at its most pervasive in “garrison” communities. These are communities entirely under the control of one or other of the political parties. Party control is sometimes enforced by heavily armed gangs who force people in the community to vote for the party in control.

Core gang members represent no more than 5 per cent of the population of these communities.^¹³ However, the stigma of criminality or potential criminality is not confined to this minority. Entire communities are the victims of generalized prejudice in society which is reflected in the way in which they are policed. There are persistent reports of discrimination and killings by the security forces. The failure to hold to account those responsible for such violations has eroded confidence among those living in poor inner-city communities that the institutions of the state will provide justice and protect their rights.

Caught between the criminal gangs who control their neighbourhoods and violent policing methods, people living in these communities are denied access to effective state protection and to the services which should provide for their basic economic and social rights and so enable them to enjoy a whole range of human rights.

This report describes how the Jamaican authorities are failing to protect people living in poverty in inner-city communities from a range of human rights violations; for many in these communities the state has failed to provide for even their most basic social and economic rights. It shows how the authorities are failing to hold to account those in the security forces who commit human rights violations. The report ends with a series of recommendations.

Many politicians and officials have acknowledged the scale and the source of the problems. Amnesty International calls on the Jamaican authorities to show the political will needed to reduce homicide rates in the inner-cities and address the root causes of the violence; to introduce human rights-based policing; to reduce killings by police; and to reform the justice system to improve access to justice, especially for the poorest sectors of Jamaican society.

Methodology

This report is based on research carried out mainly in 15 socially excluded^¹⁴inner-city communities in Kingston, St Andrew and St Catherine in March and October 2007. Amnesty International delegates interviewed around 120 men and women from those communities, social workers and religious leaders working in these communities, academics, NGOs and artists. They also met government officials and ministers, including the Minister of Justice; members of the opposition People’s National Party (PNP) and the head of the Police Public Complaints Authority. Amnesty International also interviewed senior officers at the JCF and the Bureau of Special Investigations, but was not able to speak with constables despite several requests.

Almost all the data and statistics used in the analysis of this report come from government sources.^¹⁵An important part of analysis is based on official documents and reports commissioned by the Government or by the opposition.^¹⁶Despite reports of police officers being killed during so-called “confrontations” with gangs in the communities, the authorities were unable to provide any data to support these allegations. Amnesty International also referred to secondary sources such as work of academics, UN and other international reports, media and local NGOs reports.

There are significant difficulties when researching violence in communities in Jamaica, especially because those who decide to speak may be at risk of reprisals. For security reasons, the identities of some individuals and communities have been withheld. Amnesty International would like to thank all those who helped contribute to this report and who gave their time and valuable information.

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND

“Because the government is not socially intervening in these communities, leaders who deal with petty crime in their area also deal with school problems of all children, they provide for the little old lady to make sure she gets food, they distribute legal and illegal jobs, etc. They take the role of the state at a basic level”

Monsignor Richard Albert, St Catherine, Episcopal Vicar St Catherine, Jamaica and Chair of the Crime Prevention Committee in Spanish Town, October 2007.

The principal victims of violent crime in Jamaica are people living in extremely poor overcrowded inner-cities, so-called “ghettos”.^¹⁷ Between 30% and 45% of the population of Kingston Metropolitan Region (KMR) live in these communities.^¹⁸ Among these communities, victims of crime are strongly concentrated in the so-called “garrison communities”, where political violence merges with harsh living conditions.^¹⁹

Although according to national statistics poverty levels have fallen significantly in Jamaica in the past decade,^²⁰ many people living in inner-city communities do not appear to have benefited from the increased prosperity. A recent study based on official data, states for example, that many people in these communities are unemployed; have to contend with a grossly inadequate infrastructure including a lack of indoor taps/ pipes as a source of drinking water, sewage systems or proper toilet facilities.^²¹

Those interviewed by Amnesty International said that the principal preoccupations in socially excluded inner-city communities were lack of jobs, lack of training and qualifications to get jobs, and lack of access to education. Access to health and adequate housing were also concerns, especially for those living in houses built of zinc or where the roof had been destroyed by Hurricane Dean in August 2007.

Many people living in poverty in these communities link violence with deprivation, describing how frustration and the feeling of hopelessness fuel violence. Many also say that those communities that openly support the political party in power receive more social intervention than others; creating tensions and large disparities between adjacent communities.

The failure of the authorities to ensure the minimum essential levels of adequate food and housing or access to employment, education and health services, means people are forced to turn to gang leaders for everything from work, to money to pay for schooling to transport to a hospital or help with paying for medicines. Sometimes state social intervention can end up being controlled by gang leaders. In this situation people living in an excluded community are forced to show loyalty to gang leaders.

The political roots of violence

Political violence has been a consistent feature of Jamaican party politics. Since the introduction of adult suffrage in 1944, two political parties have dominated the political landscape – the PNP and the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP). Historical accounts suggest that street violence with sticks and stones had been used by both political parties in the late colonial period to assure votes. However, after independence in 1962, and particularly during the 1970s, the involvement of organized armed gangs in the political process became entrenched and sticks and stones gave way to semi-automatic weapons.

According to political analysts, long-term political violence required the empowerment of strong (and violent) armed leaders who would enforce the political agenda in each community and help create garrison communities through violence and intimidation.

“A garrison, as the name suggests, is a political stronghold, a veritable fortress completely controlled by a party. At one level a garrison community can be described as one in which anyone who seeks to oppose, raise opposition to or organize against the dominant party would definitely be in danger of suffering serious damage to their possessions or person thus making continued residence in the area extremely difficult if not impossible. Any significant social, political, economic or cultural development within the garrison can only take place with the tacit approval of the leadership (whether local or national) of the dominant party.”^²²

The garrison phenomenon, and the political culture that it represents, created high levels of violence in these communities. Adjacent communities also suffer because of confrontations between rival gangs from different garrisons vying for control.^²³ Political violence reached a peak in the 1980 elections when around 800 people were killed in clashes between rival groups. Although the then Police Commissioner, among others, expressed concerns before the September 2007 national elections that there would be violent clashes, the violence did not reach the levels feared.

“My home was shot up two nights after this election day. One man was shot seven times in the same yard, beside my house. They kicked my door open. My mother was in the room and they couldn’t get her door open so they fired four shots through the window. My mother was in there with two of my kids. No one was hurt because they went on the ground. It was for political reasons. Their side lost in our community.”

Woman living in a garrison community in Kingston referring to 2007 general elections, October 2007

“I didn’t feel safe during election time. The night when the election call I couldn’t sleep. I cried all night, listening to the police firing the gunshots and the following morning the youths picked up 117 spent shells in a bucket. There was no peace those days.”

Young woman from a garrison community in Kingston referring to 2007 general elections, October 2007

Criminologists argue that the growth of garrison communities has been one of the key factors in the development of crime and violence in Jamaica.^²⁴ Some argue that crime and violence cannot be understood in Jamaica without reference to politics.^²⁵ The problem is so widespread and its consequences so damaging that in 1997 a broad-based National Committee on Political Tribalism wasappointed by then Prime Minister P.J. Patterson to consider practical steps to reduce political tensions and violence.

“[I]t is beyond debate that party politics was the cradle for factional conflicts, that the political clashes of the late 1960s, particularly in the election period of 1967, ushered in the era of firearm offences against the person and that party politics remain a major cause.”

Report of the National Committee on Political Tribalism, July 1997, para. 44

Between elections the gangs that run garrison communities are able to profit from their control of government contracts and extortion/protection rackets, among other, often illegal, activities. However, according to the National Committee on Political Tribalism “political protection insulates them from the reach of the security forces”.^²⁶ Thus, they are able to decide over the life and death of inner-city community inhabitants with impunity.

The Committee also noted that “many politicians have benefited from the unrest and displacement that are features of communities with high levels of unemployment, a proliferation of unskilled and virtually unemployable youth and pervasive poverty”.^²⁷

Murder and violent crime are increasingly committed with guns. According to official data, in the 1990s 50 per cent of homicides were committed with guns. This rose to 61 per cent in 2000 and around 75 per cent in 2005.^²⁸

In 1974 Jamaica criminalized the ownership of guns without a licence. However, sanctions to prevent the illicit trade in arms remained weak and ineffective. In July 2005, parliament passed the Fire Arms Act which introduced harsher penalties for the misuse of guns, and an independent body for the issuing of firearms licenses.

Despite these important developments, the Jamaican government has not adequately addressed arms control. Only a minority of arms used to commit violence is believed to be registered. Most guns enter the country illegally from North, Central and South America, often as partial payment for drug shipments.^²⁹ Once inside the country, guns are harder to retrieve. Although 683 weapons were seized in 2005, this figure is thought to represent merely the tip of the iceberg. ^³⁰

Arms control, particularly in a country such as Jamaica which does not manufacture or produce its own guns, is not only the responsibility of individual states: it is a global problem. At the UN Small Arms conference in January 2006, the Jamaican representative made this point when she urged the international community to adopt a legally binding instrument on the marking and tracing of illicit small arms and weapons.^³¹ In December 2006, Jamaica was among 153 governments who agreed on the need for a international arms trade treaty to set common standards on the import, export and transfer of weapons and voted in favour of UN General Assembly Resolution 61/89, Towards an Arms Trade Treaty.

CHAPTER 3: LIVING WITH VIOLENCE IN THE INNER-CITY

The Jamaican state’s failure to protect and respect human rights has had devastating consequences for socially excluded communities. Residents are trapped between high levels of violent crime by criminal gangs and repression and mistreatment by a police force which should be protecting them.

“The person that the gang wanted lived over to the side and they wanted him to take side with them and he denied because we wanted the community to be one. So because he didn’t take side they burnt down his house, destroyed everything he had, he backed off and they came back and murdered his son and his mother.”

Young men from an inner-city community in Kingston, October 2007

“If you have a gun you are not safe because bad men attack men who they know have a gun. If you don’t have a gun you are still not safe, because anyone can come and kill you, including the police. And even if you didn’t do anything you are not safe, because if someone close to you did something to the gangs and they can not find him they will come and find you: ‘If you caan ketch quacko yuh ketch im shut” [for ‘if you can’t catch someone you catch the person closest to him].”

Woman from a garrison community, Kingston, October 2007

Violence in these communities is flourishing against a backdrop of disparities in access to economic and social rights, political violence and corruption. National homicide rates have risen fairly consistently since independence. However, increased levels of violence have been largely concentrated in areas of social exclusion underlining the state’s failure to ensure the effective security of residents.

“Andrew was a footballer and the father of my baby. He went to his bed in the night and they shot him dead in the bed, him and another guy in the same house. He had nothing to do with the war or the gangs. But on the other side of the community shots were fired and a little feud kicked off. The same youths from that side left and came on our side seeking help and refuge and they got it. So around 35 to 40 armed men went by to our community to catch the guys hiding. They couldn’t find them so they killed my baby’s father to make a point. That started a war between up that side and down the other side, so that’s where the feud is coming from.”

Young woman from an inner-city community in Kingston, October 2007

People living in poverty in socially excluded inner-city communities are more likely to be the victims of violent crime. According to a recent UN report, poorer households are more at risk of all violent crime and are at greater risk of murder and wounding.^³² The report also found that those living in communities with lower levels of educational attainment were more likely to be victims of all crimes.^³³

Most of those who spoke to Amnesty International identified gang warfare and policing methods as the main sources of violence. ^³⁴ Gangs generate income from a variety of illicit activities^³⁵ and gang members are invariably well armed, sometimes more so than the police. While many communities say that gang violence is usually targeted, Amnesty International also heard many accounts of widespread destruction of property, robbery, violence against women, children and the elderly, and constant intimidation in some communities.

“I live on an inner city in east Kingston and there was this guy, he spends his time studying his bible, read and thing like that. I was at home me and my kids, in the night I heard someone come and hit on my door, I asked who it was and no one answered. I heard them trying to hit off the door. They came in and held a gun on me and my baby and kept on saying that they were going to murder my baby and I told them that they can’t do that because we have done nothing to them. They then went next door, to the “bible guy”, they went to his house and broke into his house. He had to run, all cut up himself. He ran straight to the police station and that’s how he saved himself. An elderly lady next door, they did the same thing to her, put her out with her grandchildren, they have nowhere to live. They had to move around. They just decided that we all had to move because they wanted the houses were we lived and it’s not theirs. We have lived there for years. It’s like them just ‘badmind’, they just start fighting against us.”

Young woman living in an inner city in Kingston, October 2007.

The worst violence is reported during times when rival gangs within a community or in adjacent neighbourhoods are competing over territorial control, which is referred to by communities as “the war”. At such times of heightened confrontation, the entire population can be held hostage, shut down by barricades and unable to leave their homes after 5pm, the time when shooting starts.

Children cannot go out to play and are often prevented from attending school, either because the schools are closed or because it is too dangerous for either pupils or teachers to attend. Often children are so traumatized by the violence that even if schools are still functioning, they are sometimes just too frightened to leave home.

People working outside the community have problems getting to work as public and private transport has to be suspended because of the violence. Reaching a health clinic can also be difficult, particularly if the closest one is in the “enemy” community.

“When the ‘war’ was happening we couldn’t drink clean water because we needed to go to the next community to pick up the clean water from the tanks, but we couldn’t cross to that section because it was too dangerous, the gang there saw anyone coming from this community as a threat to them… At night we had to sleep on the floor, all of us, the children the Grandma, all of us; covered by the mattress because sometimes the shots can go through the house and kill us.”

Woman from an inner-city community, Kingston, October 2007.

Young men and boys are, without doubt, at greatest risk of gun violence. Boys as young as 12 are targeted by gang members trying to recruit them. They are asked to carry out small tasks which they cannot refuse for fear of reprisals against themselves or their families.

One woman told Amnesty International that her neighbour’s 12-year-old son was sent by a gang to another community, carrying a gun. The boy was robbed on his way there and he knew he was going to be killed if he came back without the gun and without the money, so he ran away. The mother was killed the following morning.

Women in these communities also experience high levels of violence.^³⁶ Many women told Amnesty International that if a gang member wanted to have sex with a woman she had no choice as refusal could result in punishment for herself and her entire family. In many cases, young women are also used as messengers or to send goods from one gang to the other. Many women have to raise their children alone since the fathers are on the run or have been killed in gang violence. If gang members cannot find the person they are looking for, sometimes the closest relative is killed, to teach the rest of the community a lesson.

‘“Our community was just quiet, no gun shot or anything. But we woke up on Friday and heard five people died, we were all in shock. They [the gang] came over and murdered a four-month-old baby, an innocent lady and an innocent guy. We don’t even know them, people who leave home to work and back. And they could have killed a lot more people at the time. Hours later, a 70 year old lady was bringing her little grandson to school. While she was waiting they placed her hand in execution style, shot her in the head and killed her. The little boy, when he saw what happened, he ran under the house bottom and they pulled him out, placed the gun in his head and killed him… Nobody really thought that the first family would have gotten in a feud; they just lived close to the wrong people. They were easier to catch. It’s the case of not being able to catch someone so you shot a friend. The lady and her grandson it was reprisal, her son was one of the key masterminds behind the killing of the first family, so they went to take revenge.”

Young man from an inner-city community in Kingston, October 2007.

The intensity and nature of gang violence vary from community to community, depending, for example, on the size of the gangs, the number of gangs operating in the community and the relative strength of the main gang. However core gang members are usually a handful of young men, who control almost every aspect of the lives of the rest of the community. The methods of control are violence and intimidation, but also providing protection and welfare services in communities that have been largely abandoned by the state. The communities in which gang rule is most pervasive and entrenched are the garrison communities.

Garrison communities: ‘a state within a state’

“The hard core garrison communities exhibit an element of autonomy in that they are a state within a state. The Jamaican State has no authority or power, except in as far as its forces are able to invade in the form of police and military raids. In the core garrison disputes have been settled, matters tried, offenders sentenced and punished, all without reference to the institutions of the Jamaican State… entry and exit to and from garrisons communities are controlled by gang leaders who have close relationships with the constituency Member of Parliament, get preferential access to contracts and jobs and function as key elements of the local level political leadership in both parties in the inner city poor areas.”

Report of the National Committee on Political Tribalism, July 1997, para.33

To those living in garrison communities, it seems as if the state has effectively abandoned them, creating a vacuum which has been filled by the leaders of criminal gangs or “dons”.^³⁷

“We don’t know who make the rules, we just came and saw them. There are rules like, ‘you can’t fire at a man unless he fires at you first’. When someone breaks the rule, the ‘big man’ makes sure that person gets what he deserves. He finds you and tells you what you shouldn’t be doing. It’s just something everyone knows, so you know what will happen and what won’t, you know exactly how to deal with it. If you do something very bad you will be eliminated.”

Young man from an inner-city community in Kingston, October 2007.

One of the rules that is consistent across every community is “informer fi dead”. If a gang member knows that someone went to the police and gave them some information about gang activities in the community, that person is considered an “informer” and will be killed. The “code of silence” in garrison communities is enforced by fear, but it is also sustained by a deep distrust of the police’s integrity and a lack of confidence that the justice system will bring gang members to justice.

Fighting violence with violence

“The JCF, being an export of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the United Kingdom, which was designed to put up riots and insurrections, was like a paramilitary organization which fights violence with superior violence.”

Commissioner of Police, Rear Admiral Hardley Lewin^³⁸

Police officers are empowered to use legitimate force and, given the violence of the contexts in which they often operate, this will sometimes involve the use of firearms. International standards set out when use of force by law enforcement officials is legitimate.

Effective policing is a key element in providing human security^³⁹. The JCF is the main body responsible for policing in Jamaica and is empowered to use legitimate use of force in carrying out its duties. International human rights law sets out standards on how police powers can be used legitimately. These recognize that police perform an important social function, sometimes in dangerous situations.

The UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (UN Code of Conduct) and the Basic Principles on the use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (Basic Principles) are the main standards covering the use of force and firearms by police, many of which have been integrated into the JCF’s internal regulations.^⁴⁰International standards state that firearms are to be used only when less extreme measures are insufficient and only when strictly unavoidable in order to protect human life. Officers should be guided at all times by the principles of necessity and proportionality when using force. Every effort should be made to apprehend rather than kill and lethal force must never be used as an alternative to arrest.

However, in Jamaica the fact that criminal gangs are heavily armed is often used as an excuse for excessive use of force by some members of the JCF. (See Chapter 4.)

“They killed my child. What did my child do to the system? My child did nothing to hurt anyone. Why did they kill my child? Who are they? Why are they going around deciding people’s lives?”

Angela Hutchinson, mother of Ravin Thompson, a victim of police violence, October 2007.

“The youths hide from police, because they will say ‘don’t run from police if you have nothing to hide’; but when you do that, you will sit and die”

Community peace-maker, inner-city West Kingston, October 2007.

Policing can be a high risk profession in Jamaica. Killings of police officers have reportedly increased in recent years.^⁴¹According to media reports, in 2007 alone, 20 officers were killed. For example, on 1 October 2007 gunmen shot dead 37-year-old Constable Richard King whilst on patrol in Orange Street in downtown Kingston.^⁴²

In December 2007 the JCF received information stating that a well-known gang in the St James parish had compiled a hit list of police officers who were to be targeted in reprisal for the death of a gang leader in June.^⁴³ The threat was particularly worrying as similar reprisal killings had been carried out in the past. In May 2005 for example, two gang members led an assault against police officers which left three officers and a security guard dead and another officer shot and injured. The attack was allegedly carried out in reprisal for the killing of a former Tivoli Gardens gang leader by the security forces a month earlier.^⁴⁴ On 15 January 2008, a police constable and a Jamaica Defence Force soldier were shot and injured during what the police described as a shoot-out with gunmen in Tivoli Gardens.^⁴⁵ The fact that gangs are heavily armed is not controversial. However, this fact is too often used as an excuse for excessive use of force by some members of the JCF.

On the evening of Friday 27 July 2007, 18-year-old Ravin Thompson went to visit his aunt, Pinky, who lives in inner-city Kingston. The street was full of people. Around 9pm, he was standing by the gate of his aunt’s yard, chatting with her and his pregnant cousin, when two jeeps with four soldiers and one police officer in each arrived. The officers tried to stop a young man who was walking on the street, but he started to run away. Officers opened fire. Since Pinky’s gate was open, the young man decided to run into her gate. He escaped unharmed, but Ravin Thompson was shot in the shoulder and arm by the officers.

Pinky asked the officers to take him to the closest hospital. She insisted on going with him in the jeep to make sure he arrived at the hospital safely. She was holding him in her arms in the jeep; he was scared but conscious and was talking to her. She described how he told her, “don’t worry aunty, I am going to be alright”. Minutes later, still on the road, Pinky says a soldier pushed her out of the jeep. She went back to her neighborhood to get help. When she arrived at the public hospital, Ravin Thompson was dead. According to the autopsy, he had four gunshot wounds. One gunshot wound was in the left-hand side of his face, which according to the official autopsy fractured his neck. He had another gunshot wound in his chin which travelled through the brain.

Pinky and the rest of her family and friends present at the shooting have stated that they are certain he was only injured in the arm and shoulder when he left the house and that he was murdered in the jeep, before arriving at the hospital. The police recorded the incident as a shoot-out. The Police Public Complaints Authority (PPCA) and the Bureau of Special Investigations (BSI) initiated investigations. At the time of writing no officer had been charged in connection with Ravin Thompson’s death.

Police abuses and lack of accountability have been documented by national and international NGOs for the last 30 years. During research conducted by Amnesty International in 2000 in inner-city communities, people described the police not as protectors from crime but as a force to be feared, almost akin to an occupying force.^⁴⁶ Although changes have taken place since then, the pattern of excessive use of force and lack of accountability continues. The average number of victims of police killings per year has increased (see table 1). Between 2000 and 2007 1,422 people were killed by police and a further 1,115 injured.^⁴⁷

In many of these killings lethal force may have been used according to international standards. However, Amnesty International has access to extensive evidence of killings described as shoot-outs that did not occur in confrontations but in circumstances suggesting excessive use of force or extrajudicial execution by the police.^⁴⁸ In the overwhelming majority of cases documented by Amnesty International and in those featured in the media, the victims are from socially excluded inner-city communities.^⁴⁹

19-year-old André Thomas was stopped in early September 2007 in the inner-city community of Grants Pen by four police officers. He was wearing a button (badge) carrying the picture of a friend who was killed by gang members. When the officers saw the button they reportedly said “you wearing your friend’s button. Your friends will soon be wearing yours”.

On 29 September 2007, at around 1am André Thomas was shot in the leg and hand by police officers. He was placed in the police car to be taken to the hospital. He told his father that he didn’t want to go alone because he was scared. His father said he was prevented from getting into the police car and when he arrived at the public hospital, he was told that his son had died. The doctor explained that he had wounds all over his body: in his leg, in his hand, in his abdomen, in his stomach and one in his back. André Thomas’ father believes his son was murdered in the police car on the way to the hospital.

Residents of Grants Pen held demonstrations to protest about what they identified as an extrajudicial execution. Grants Pen has a pilot community policing project with a community policing centre inside the community. The four police officers involved were not from the centre but were often seen in the community. According to local human rights NGOs, several complaints of ill-treatment had been made in recent years against one of the officers allegedly involved, but no action had been taken.

The officers’ account of the incident stated that they were on patrol in the Grants Pen community when they saw a group of men acting suspiciously. When they approached the young men, one of them pointed a firearm at them. They took evasive action and opened fire, hitting one of the young men. According to the officers, a Raven .25 automatic pistol with the serial number erased and a magazine containing five .25 cartridges was found in André Thomas' possession.

André Thomas’ father said that a week after the shooting he too was threatened by four police officers: “you are going to die and when you dead you would know who kill you”.

The officers involved in André Thomas’ killing, did not report to their superiors until four days after the incident. The police jeep used in the operation was also missing for four days. There were allegations in the media that the police jeep was taken to a private garage to be repaired. When the officers finally reported to their superiors, they were charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice and released on bail on 8 October. In December 2007, four officers were charged with murder in the Half-Way Tree Criminal Court. The trial was pending at the time of writing.

André Thomas’ case is unique only in the fact that it was rapidly investigated and the officers responsible were charged with murder. Of the 1,422 cases of people killed by the police between 2000 and 2007 only one police officer was so far found guilty of murder.^⁵⁰

Many killings by police take place in disputed circumstances. The authorities acknowledge that law enforcement officials carry out the killings, but assert that they are justified. In almost every case where someone is killed by police, the official explanation follows a very similar pattern. Typically, this states that a police patrol came across men acting suspiciously who, when challenged, produced firearms and opened fire on the officers. Police then returned fire, killing one or more of the men, while others escaped.

The credibility of these accounts is undermined by their remarkable uniformity and the many cases in which they are disputed by eyewitness accounts which describe that victims were killed although they posed no risk to human life. In many cases, victims were killed in their beds, casting serious doubt on the extent to which they may have been posing a threat to officers or others.

The fact that almost every police shooting results in a fatality raises further doubts about the credibility of official explanations. In many cases forensic evidence also contradicts assertions that the person died in a shoot-out. For example, in some cases autopsies reveal that victims were shot in the head at short range (execution style) and that their hands bore no traces of gunpowder, indicating that they were unlikely to have fired a weapon. Sometimes victims were threatened by police officers before they were killed.

Amnesty International’s research over the years has revealed numerous cases where the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that those killed were victims of extrajudicial executions. In many of these cases, there is a persistent pattern in the way in which deadly force is used, the attempts to cover up evidence, the “code of silence” among the security forces, and the absence of prompt, thorough and effective investigations. ^⁵¹

Table 1

Year	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	TOTAL
People killed by the police	149	157	154	128	131	202	229	272	1422
People injured by the police	131	122	158	138	139	130	144	153	1115

Source: Bureau of Special Investigations.

The stigma of belonging to an inner-city community

“If a policeman comes within my community he sees every person as a gunman, a thief, always doing something wrong. There is nowhere in Jamaica other than in the inner-city that a police come and kick your door, barge in your house, start to search and when you look, he will come up with a gun that you knew nothing about and he carry all, your grandfather, everyone to jail. I am not saying there is no crime and persons of a criminal intent within the community but you can’t barge in like that trying to police. If you do, who is going to police the good law abiding citizens in the community?”

Woman from inner-city Kingston, October 2007.

Although gang members make up only a small proportion of the inhabitants of inner-city communities, the stigma that is attached to the community is not confined to those involved in gangs or crime. People living in poverty in socially excluded neighbourhoods report that their entire community encounters strong and entrenched prejudice from the security forces and society as a whole. For example, many people living in the inner-cities find it impossible to get a job outside their communities because as soon as they are asked their address in a job interview, they are told that they are not qualified for the position because they live in a “violent area”.

Many people referred to the fact that there are “good cops and bad cops” and that some police officers were trying hard to do their job and protect people and were keen to work with them to combat crime.

However, many people also report that some police officers treat every person in the inner-city as a criminal. Almost everyone described to Amnesty International experiences of persistent police abuses and violence and general lack of respect for their communities. People described how police destroyed their stalls and the goods they were selling, their sole source of income. One woman told Amnesty International that once when she heard some shots she called the police. She was at home with her three children; they were all terrified. When the police arrived, they kicked in the door, forced their way in, threw everybody on the floor and searched the house before even talking to her. Neighbours reported similar experiences.

“Instead of them seeing your situation and encourage you to get help and go back to school they [the police] disrespect you… And if they can handle me that way, then I can handle any member of my community in the same way. They are not setting an example to serve.”

Community peace worker from a garrison community, West Kingston, October 2007

One recent American documentary shows a group of police officers referred to people living in the inner-city as “volatile people that can become criminals in any moment”. One Superintendent of the JCF was quoted in a newspaper as saying: "No police, no army, no government can solve murder like this one because it is cronies killing cronies and we know that it is almost like dogs eating dogs."^⁵² Many social workers in communities reported similar experiences. They are frequently subjected to questioning by police officers and even politicians and told that their work is useless and that they should “let them kill each other”.

“The police are not community police anymore. When I was younger, any problems the first people you would run to is the police. Now, if you walking and you see a gunman or a police, you would be safer with the gunman.”

Woman from an inner-city community, Kingston

The feeling of distrust and disrespect is so widespread that many people in the inner-cities fear the police, more than they fear criminal gangs which dominate their communities. The government has recognized that the: “illegal imposition of the State’s power and authority over its citizens, including the application of physical and moral abuse, constitutes a threat to good order and governance. This malaise can lead to serious alienation of, and disrespect for not only law enforcement agencies, but also the Government itself.” ^⁵³

“These intelligent criminals are evil, they are well learned persons, so they will manipulate the youths on the corner, they will touch on their softer side. If the police will treat us with respect and we feel we can trust them, collectively the community persons with the help of the police could get rid of them. Together we can make the gunmen afraid to come out instead of us being afraid of the gunmen and of the police.”

Community peace worker from a garrison community in West Kingston, October 2007.

The widespread prejudice and violence which people in inner-city communities experience together with the pattern of police abuses and killings intensifies exclusion, violence and distrust in state institutions. ^⁵⁴ One community worker explained that in his experience police disrespect and brutality often pushes people into joining gangs because they feel they have a duty to organize protection for themselves and their communities against police abuses. This was recently recognized by the Jamaican government.

“Abusive behavior and the use of excessive force by members of the police and the military… have contributed to a growing sense of alienation among some persons in the society who feel they are being denied justice. As a result, parallel systems of ‘justice’ have evolved with the assent of the “dons” and informal “area leaders”, as well as vigilante justice and arbitrary community enforcement.”

Government of Jamaica, National Security Policy for Jamaica: Towards a Secure & Prosperous Nation, May 2006, Chapter 2.2

The prejudice which underlies police hostility to inner-city communities appears to have been reinforced by official attitudes and statements. The government has blamed the high levels of violence concentrated in these communities to a “culture of violence in the inner-city communities”. ^⁵⁵ The view of people living in poverty as uneducated and violent and needing to be ruled by force or “civilized” for the good of the country was widespread among public servants and politicians interviewed by Amnesty International. It is true that a generation has grown up in these socially excluded inner-cities knowing only a world encircled by criminal and police violence. However, official statements and practices that reinforce and condone popular stereotypes and social exclusion as well as stigmatization of the poor are only making things worse.

CHAPTER 4: THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SECURITY

The Jamaican state has an obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights to life, integrity, security and dignity of all people living under its jurisdiction.^⁵⁶ International human rights law requires that the authorities not abuse their powers and actively protect people’s rights.

People living in socially excluded communities riven by violence and poverty have been denied security by the state.The Jamaican authorities have failed to exercise due diligence in dealing with violence by armed gangs on the one hand, and to hold to account law enforcement officials who commit human rights violations on the other. In addition, some officers participate in or tolerate illegal practices that encourage violence, such as corruption and organized crime. Some elected public officials rely on perpetrators of organized crime to gain electoral support. Widespread impunity for these abuses creates a situation which facilitates human rights violations. All of these factors have contributed to the present crisis in public security^⁵⁷, undermining trust in state institutions among socially excluded Jamaicans.

The lack of public confidence in Jamaica’s law enforcement force is acknowledged by some senior members of the force as well as government ministers. Yet, insufficient progress has been made on implementing reforms, improving transparency and purging the force of corruption and those who abuse power and commit human rights violations. The reasons for this are partly revealed in the following account given by a police officer.

"I enlisted in the Jamaica Constabulary Force in the 1980s, and from as early as training school, we were taught to adhere to the espritde corps code, where no matter what a member of our training squad did we were not expected to pass information on to our superiors. We were actually told that they did not like persons that gave them information on others… Any member of a squad that decided to stand up for discipline and refused to support the breaking of the rules would be isolated... We were told that the things we are taught in training would not always correspond with the occurrences in the real world. Therefore, the simulation exercises became irrelevant and were just done to enhance our chances of getting better pass marks in our exams…I have been a part of a number of these 'shoot-outs', and have had to corroborate the lies, knowing innocent lives were taken. On other occasions, firearms are found, not handed over, but instead kept as 'sweetie' - guns given to unarmed victims in police shootings. After one of these fatal shootings, a disagreement with my superior officer saw me being placed back in uniform. Shortly after, I was temporarily assigned to the traffic department.”

Police Officer, Jamaica Sunday Gleaner, “Police officer comes clean”, 24 December 2006

Excessive use of force and impunity

The authorities have an obligation under international law to respect and protect the right to life. The JCF and the JDF when policing, must comply with international standards (see Chapter 6). However, in their deployment of lethal force, some police officers in Jamaica regularly flout these standards, as well as national regulations.

As some of the cases in this report show, evidence suggests a pattern of excessive use of force by the JCF. More than 10 per cent of people killed in Jamaica during 2005 were killed by the police.^⁵⁸ In 2006, even though the murder rate decreased (from 69 to 58 per 100,000 residents) the rate of fatal shootings by the police increased, representing more than 14 per cent of the total.^⁵⁹ In 2007, police killings represented more than 15 per cent of the total.^⁶⁰ Given that the police are required to minimize damage and injury and above all respect and preserve human life, it is usually expected that more people would be injured than killed during policing operations. In Jamaica, however, in seven years (2000-2007) the JCF killed 1,422 people and injured 1,115.

Evidence strongly suggests that in some of those cases the unlawful use of force by some members of the security forces resulted in extrajudicial executions. Following her visit to Jamaica in February 2003, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions stated that:

“it was the Special Rapporteur’s distinct impression that extrajudicial executions by the police, and possibly in a very few cases also Jamaican Defence Forces, had in fact taken place… In some incidents the security forces appeared to have used direct, deliberate and excessive use of force without any provocation, resulting in the death of individuals”.^⁶¹

The Jamaican authorities have an obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent unlawful killings by law enforcement officials and to investigate such violations when they occur. If the authorities fail to conduct an impartial and effective investigation, this failure adds to the presumption that a killing was committed with government acquiescence, amounting to an extrajudicial execution.

Inadequate investigations

Investigations into cases of fatal shootings in disputed circumstances by members of the police are wholly inadequate. They are compromised by a number of flaws and obstacles, including destruction or damage to evidence at the scene of the crime, a lack of resources (especially forensic and ballistic expertise), a lack of transparency, inadequate powers to investigate and to implement recommendations, and serious delays and inefficiencies. These obstacles are compounded by a lack of appropriate forensic and ballistic capacity to carry out transparent and independent investigations into alleged cases of extrajudicial execution.

The two institutions in charge of investigating police shootings in Jamaica are the BSI and the Police Public Complaints Authority(PPCA). The BSI is responsible for investigating all police shooting incidents and reports to the Commissioner of Police. The PPCA in contrast is an external, independent, civilian body that investigates complaints against the police. It can also initiate its own investigations. Both the BSI and PPCA draw up reports to submit to the Commissioner of Police and to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in cases where the investigation suggests that criminal procedures could be followed. The DPP then decides whether to pursue criminal proceedings, or to send the matter to the Coroner’s Court for further inquiries.

The BSI investigates all police shootings and by 2007 was receiving approximately 47 reports per month on average. At the time of writing, investigations had only been completed in 59 per cent of 3,225 cases received between January 1999 and September 2007. In that time 191 police officers had been charged; 111 have been acquitted while warrants for 19 others were outstanding. Only one police officer was convicted in that period.

The BSI has rules and procedures for investigations that appear to comply with international standards. However, the practice falls short of these standards. The BSI does not have independent forensic or ballistic experts and has to rely on JCF facilities, which are located inside a JCF building, seriously compromising the independence of forensic and ballistic evidence.

The PPCA is an independent body established in 1992 to monitor and supervise investigations by the police into killings by police and other complaints against the police. It reports annually to the Minister of Justice. The PPCA can also investigate cases of its own accord and submit cases for prosecution to the DPP.^⁶²

Public confidence in the PPCA is low. Between April 2005 and March 2006 the PPCA received 339 new complaints, 19 of which involved fatal shootings. This represents only 10 per cent of cases of fatal shooting recorded by the JCF in that period. Of the 19 cases of fatal shootings, only three were referred to the DPP; all were still pending at the time of writing.

PPCA investigators collect ballistic, forensic and post-mortem evidence from JCF institutions. The PPCA also lacks the authority to make final determinations on criminal charges or disciplinary actions and to obtain statements from suspect police officers if they are not willing to cooperate. It can only make recommendations to the DPP.

Human rights organizations in Jamaica have documented many irregularities in the investigations by the BSI and the PPCA. These include investigators delaying visits to the crime scene, sometimes for several days, resulting in the loss of vital evidence; failure to preserve the crime scene by prematurely moving the bodies; failure to collect evidence, including sample swabs, clothing or statements; and failure to conduct adequate and complete autopsies.^⁶³

It is clear that the current system of investigations into alleged extrajudicial executions by members of the security forces is completely inadequate to guarantee justice for the victims.

Other factors contributing to impunity

Amnesty International has identified several other factors that contribute to impunity for law enforcement officials who use excessive force. These reinforce the findings of national and international experts.^⁶⁴

The JCF, originally set up to deal with riots and insurrections, has remained substantially unchanged since its creation.^⁶⁵ Its policing style is informed by this rationale, characterized by a high degree of aggressiveness or “hard policing” rather than the need to protect and serve all people in their jurisdiction.

Many officers lack sufficient and effective training in the use of non-lethal force. Several senior police officials confirmed that it is common practice among JCF officers to use arms as a first rather than a last resort, particularly in inner-city communities. Sometimes police officers fire their guns out of fear, since they lack tactical training in the use of non-lethal force and as a result end up using disproportionately high levels of force.

JCF officers are frequently not issued with appropriate weaponry for policing. Although every police officer has a firearm, most do not have handcuffs, straight batons or CS sprays.^⁶⁶

There are also weakness in the chain-of-command and hierarchical structure of the JCF. Amnesty International has received reports of many cases where officers of lower rank failed to report to their superiors after using excessive force, covered up abuses, tampered with evidence and failed to collaborate with investigations. Superior officers with chain-of-command control are not held responsible for these failures.

There is a tendency to cover up suspected cases of unlawful killing by failing to preserve evidence, disturbing evidence at the crime scene^⁶⁷ and enforcing a “code of silence” among officials.^⁶⁸

Corruption in the police and in the justice system prevent cases of alleged excessive use of force from being adequately investigated, hamper the collection of evidence and obstruct cases from being brought to trial in proceedings that meet international standards of fairness.

Successful prosecutions of police officers involved in human rights violations are rare, despite the fact that every year hundreds of successful civil actions result in compensation being paid to families. The DPP has absolute discretion to decide whether or not to prosecute a case and has shown reluctance to prosecute police officers. Amnesty International repeatedly requested statistical information from the DPP’s office, but did not receive a response. The UN Special Rapporteur has expressed serious concerns with the DPP’s performance, stating that according to the statistics made available to her by the BSI and the government, there appeared to be serious delays in the processing of cases submitted to the DPP.^⁶⁹

There is widespread acceptance in Jamaica that the justice system in general is failing.^⁷⁰ This is particularly so for the victims of police abuses, the overwhelming majority of whom are from socially excluded communities. Experts in Jamaica have also suggested that judges frequently lack impartiality and independence when confronted with police killing cases.

The government set up the Jamaican Justice System Reform Project to undertake a comprehensive review of the state of the justice system and to develop strategies and mechanisms for its modernization. According to the Project’s preliminary findings, the Jamaican justice system is too unequal, too expensive, too slow and too complicated. The task force made a series of detailed recommendations which, if fully implemented, could significantly improve access to justice for victims of criminal and police violence. The new government has expressed its commitment to implement these recommendations and is seeking international cooperation to fund it.

Some measures to improve the situation have been adopted by the authorities. These have included dismantling the highly controversial Crime Management Unit which was suspected of involvement in many incidents of excessive use of force.^⁷¹ According to official data, the previous government provided significant new equipment to the security forces, acquired new technologies for the police, and upgraded the Forensic Laboratory. In addition, the JCF hired four international senior police officers with extensive expertise in crime and organized crime management; firearms; community safety; coastal security; and anti-corruption measures.

However, these measures have not prevented an increase in the unlawful use of force by the security forces. The new government promised to implement several measures that could have an impact on the high levels of police killings and impunity. Most significantly, it promised to create an independent investigative body and a special prosecutor for abuses by police. The new Minister of Justice and Attorney General told Amnesty International that implementing plans for the new investigative body was a priority. Amnesty International welcomes these initiatives and hopes they will be implemented without delay.

Lack of comprehensive security policy

Jamaica faces a public security crisis in its inner-city areas. This is not only a challenge for policy making and for the credibility of the government; it is a human rights violation. The UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, which monitors states’ compliance with the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, stated in 2001 that it is “profoundly concerned about the violence that has apparently become widespread… The fact that these acts are committed with impunity constitutes a serious violation by the State party of its Covenant obligations.”^⁷² The Committee also called on the Jamaican authorities “to exercise the full authority of the law and all means at its command to eradicate the scourge of violence”.^⁷³

Overall, Jamaica lacks a long-term comprehensive and effective public security policy that can address the complex problems it confronts. Several initiatives, strategies and crime plans have been announced in the media, often in response to public indignation at high crime rates. However, these were soon forgotten or not properly implemented, sustained and managed. The latest of these efforts was a National Security Policy which was announced in 2007 but, to Amnesty International’s knowledge, never implemented. In this Policy, the government recognized that “the rule of law is at risk of collapsing” and noted that there was a “lack of structured and coordinated intelligence by the various law enforcement arms of the State that leaves an unacceptable gap in the defense of law and order”.^⁷⁴

“The government and civil society have a lot of wonderful initiatives like Dispute Resolution Foundation, Peace Management Initiative and the Security and Justice Program who help a lot of communities. But they come here when there is a war and then when things get slightly better, they go to another community; and what are we left with? When you are dealing with hard core criminals and people who have made up their minds from 14 years old, then you need to have interventions demarcated specifically for them, you need a long term process. The sustainability of the programs are not materializing in Jamaica.”

Community peace-maker from West Kingston, October 2007.

Some important measures have been introduced to improve public security. These include the Community Security Initiative and the Citizens Security and Justice Programmes, the Peace Management Initiative and Violence Prevention Alliance (see Chapter 5) and a pilot project of community policing in Grants Pen community, Kingston. However, these initiatives suffer from a lack of integration, prioritization, resources and coordination. Many people told Amnesty International that the success of the initiatives was more related to the good will and commitment of volunteers and staff working there than to a coordinated public security effort.

The failure of past public security strategies to tackle the problem of crime, particularly in inner-city communities, has been the subject of extensive study in Jamaica. There are several reports produced by bi-partisan commissions, NGOs, international agencies and local and international academics that have given a comprehensive picture of the complexity of the crime and violence problem and pointed towards some solutions.

One of these reports by representatives of the government, the opposition and private sector, gave a straightforward explanation for the failure of past public security policies: “there is a tendency to go for popular or politically expedient policies and programmes in preference to tough choices equal to the seriousness of the problems (lack of political will)”.^⁷⁵

A report produced by the JLP when it was in opposition reached similar conclusions: “while recognizing that there are institutional challenges in how Government works – e.g. budgetary limitations and cultural challenges – if the members of this Task Force had to identify a single cause for inaction it would be lack of political will and leadership.”^⁷⁶

Corruption

“Corruption in Jamaica is much too easy, too risk-free”

Prime Minister Bruce Golding, Inaugural Speech, Jamaica Gleaner, 16 September 2007

"When one mentions the word 'police', I am sure that one of the first things that comes to mind is the word 'corruption'.”

Commissioner of Police, Rear Admiral Hardley Lewin, Jamaica Gleaner, “Station shutdown – Police chief to reallocate resources, rein in corruption”, 21 December 2007

Widespread corruption in the JCF and in other institutions is undermining the capacity of the state to protect human rights and provide human security to socially excluded Jamaicans. The May 2006, Road Map to a Safe and Secure Jamaica, written by the JLP when it was in opposition noted that:

“the response capability of the State has been weakened or hollowed out by corruption. There is a general consensus that Jamaica suffers from endemic corruption and that this has been spreading throughout the system – and has become institutionalized in the Police Force, in the Department of Corrections and even in the judiciary… Any effort at improving the effectiveness of the institutions of crime control will therefore sooner or later collide with institutionalized corruption.”

Road Map to a Safe and Secure Jamaica, p.1.

A report prepared by the PNP when it was in office recognized the seriousness of the problem and how it affects the ability of the state to protect its citizens.^⁷⁷

There is widespread consensus that Jamaica suffers from endemic corruption and that this situation is clearly undermining the capacity of the state to provide security to every citizen. Corruption was also cited as one possible explanation for the failure of the state to exercise due diligence in protecting people living in inner-city communities from criminal and police violence.

The Road Map to a Safe and Secure Jamaica noted that “the public security crisis is facilitated by high levels of corruption”^⁷⁸. According to academics, this is because many public officials directly participate in or are paid to close their eyes to organized crime. This is linked to their reliance on criminal networks to gain office, through intimidation and, in the past, also through electoral fraud.^⁷⁹ The report agreed with that analysis, stating that “corruption in the Government, political parties and private sector facilitates the empowerment of organized crime and freedom of criminal action more generally. Government contracts are among the most commonly used means for the corrupt, mutually beneficial transfer of resources to organized crime and corrupt officials”.^⁸⁰

People in the inner-cities interviewed by Amnesty International described frequent episodes that directly linked the criminal gangs operating in the communities with some police officers. Almost every community had stories of people who went to the police to give information about a gunman and were killed before the police even reached the community. People in the community believe that corrupt police officers told the gang leaders who the informers were. This practice is believed to be widespread and part of the “business” some police officers have with gangs.

Although corruption seems to be present at various levels of government and the private sector, the public perception is that corruption is institutionalized in the police force. Almost every person interviewed by Amnesty International in the inner-cities stated that there are some corrupt police officers who are known to collaborate with criminals. This view is shared by Jamaican society as a whole. A poll published by the Jamaica Gleanerin January 2007 found that Jamaicans believed every other police officer was corrupt.^⁸¹

The 2006 Road Map to a Safe and Secure Jamaicastated that JCF personnel of different ranks had expressed the view that the majority of their senior officers were corrupt or were tolerant of corruption within the force. It listed a number of corrupt practices that have become endemic including:

payoffs for road traffic offences
selling gun licences and ammunition
dropping charges including for serious offences
warning criminal gangs of planned police actions
failing to turn up in court to give evidence
failing to record reported crimes
planting evidence on suspects
stealing goods seized during raids (for example, narcotics, money and weapons)
providing security services for gang leaders or illegal drugs shipments
removing or tampering with evidence
setting up road traffic checks to extort
taking payment to provide favourable inspection reports for clubs and bars
perjury to either secure or set aside convictions
contract killing or ‘murder for hire’.^⁸²

A serious obstacle to overcoming corruption is the “code of silence” within the JCF. This is compounded by the fact that there is no legislation to protect officers who are willing to give testimonies. It also appears that the Commissioner of Police has limited powers to discipline and dismiss officers where evidence proves they have been involved in corrupt practices.

Some measures have been taken to combat corruption. In 2005, the government established the Internal Affairs/Anti-Corruption Division of the Professional Standard Branch of the JCF. However, there was little confidence in Jamaica that this internal branch of the JCF would have the independence to fight endemic institutionalized corruption effectively.

An important measure taken by the government was the recruitment of an overseas expert as Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) in charge of anti-corruption. The new ACP has the power to arrest police officers and other public officials implicated in corruption. Amnesty International welcomes this important step towards ending corruption in Jamaica and hopes the new government and the international community will support the efforts of the ACP to investigate and prosecute corruption.

In his Inaugural Speech delivered in September 2007, Prime Minister Bruce Golding pledged to “make corruption more difficult, more hazardous with stiff penalties for violations.” The government promised to impose criminal sanctions for breaches of the rules governing the award of government contracts; establish a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute people involved in corruption; enact legislation for the impeachment and removal from office of public officials found guilty of misconduct, corruption, abuse of authority or betrayal of public trust; introduce whistleblower legislation; and review the libel and slander law to ensure that it cannot be used to protect wrongdoers.^⁸³

Living with fear and want

“Thus, for example, a State party in which any significant number of individuals is deprived of essential foodstuffs, of essential primary health care, of basic shelter and housing, or of the most basic forms of education is, prima facie, failing to discharge its obligations under the Covenant.”

UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 3, para.10

The human rights violations experienced by people living in inner-city communities are driven by and are reinforcing poverty and social exclusion. The disparities between wealthy and socially excluded communities are very marked and have helped create the conditions in which extreme levels of violence can flourish. The failure of the authorities to protect the human rights of those living in these communities has also encouraged dependency on gang leaders. Policing methods characterized by entrenched prejudice and excessive use of force have also helped perpetuate high levels of inner-city violence and marginalization.

Jamaica ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 1976. This commits the government to take steps to progressively achieve the full realization of the rights set out in the ICESCR to the maximum of its available resources (Article 2). The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – the body charged with monitoring states’ implementation of the ICESCR – has stated that deliberate, concrete and targeted steps towards t