There has been much concern expressed about crime, the poor detection rate and the continuing challenge of bringing police technique and its supporting technologies into the 21st century.
Former Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj pointed out one such deficiency, the lack of any serious effort at creating a DNA database, at a meeting of a citizen concern group, Democracy Watch last week.
The faltering political will to drive the creation of the database is a crucial indicator of the problem with bringing more science to the business of detection in T&T.
What is particularly surprising about this issue is that it was first raised in 2011, when a revised and simplified DNA Bill was presented to the Cabinet of the People’s Partnership Government, inclusive of a new clause which allowed the capture of DNA samples from accused persons, suspects and detainees in the interests of national security.
That act was proclaimed as the Administration of Justice (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) Act, 2012.
While there remain some issues regarding personal rights in the taking of DNA samples, potentially against the donor subject’s wishes, the blunt truth is that the creation of a DNA database must start somewhere and police officers should be able to tell when it would be a good idea to hold a particular individual’s DNA information on file.
Certainly, where there is sufficient cause to fingerprint someone in custody, the gathering of a DNA sample would be a sensible adjunct to that established system of identity verification.
But like so many projects that promised improvements and modernisation in policing, the plans for a DNA database join other initiatives which have failed to deliver on their promises. That infamous company includes extensive official installations of CCTV systems, which private security camera installations appear to best effortlessly and the continuing failure to implement a programme of sustained improvements at the Forensic Science Centre, which is in no position to be a storage area for DNA samples in its current state. There is still no forensics lab in Tobago.
While there were legitimate concerns about the constitution of the Special Anti-Crime Unit of T&T (SAUTT), there was no question that the unit was making significant advances in the training of line officers in the gathering of proper forensic evidence.
The Police Service has created a replacement for that project, the Crime Scene Unit, but that unit is still to register meaningful presence in the field or in the courts.
Charge books remain the database of choice for the recording of criminal activity in T&T, crucial information about incidents and individuals locked away in impenetrably archaic documentation that defies ready reference.
Conversations about creating a live network of information gathered daily by police officers that can be analysed, referenced and consulted in the field remains a matter of science fiction for local law enforcement, while texting, Whatsapping crime flourishes in virtual space around officers.
There is more that T&T could be doing to improve both detection and police work, but there remains a continuous and lamentable tension between the old way of doing things, which has proven to be demonstrably ineffective and the need for the Police Service to raise its game to meet the challenge of increasingly sophisticated crime.