Dear Editor,

Recently, Commissioner of Police Dr Kevin Blake made headlines for his response to concerns raised by Jamaicans For Justice regarding the alarming rise in police-related shooting deaths.

The issue centres on the growing number of fatalities during law enforcement operations, whereby suspects are often shot and killed in encounters with the police. However, instead of addressing the pressing need for body cameras to provide transparency and accountability, the commissioner focused on defending the police force’s combat readiness and superiority, claiming that gunmen could not win a gunfight with the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF).

This defence, while emphasising the strength of the police force, failed to address a critical point in the broader conversation about transparency and accountability in the conduct of police operations, and, specifically, the introduction and use of body-worn cameras.

One of the persistent and troubling rumours about the Jamaican police is that if confronted by a criminal carrying an illegal firearm, the police may carry out an extrajudicial killing rather than taking the suspect into custody, even in circumstances when this was possible. These rumours will tend to foster a sense of fear among criminals, who having done the maths may conclude that if the police apprehend them with an illegal firearm, and the circumstances allow, they will be killed. Having weighed the options, suspects may choose to fire at the police to give themselves a fighting chance rather than face certain death if they surrender. This kind of thinking, to the extent that it exists, places the lives of our police officers at risk, and unnecessarily so.

The prevailing theory is that the presence of body-worn cameras could significantly reduce the likelihood of criminals choosing to engage in violent confrontations with the police. Body-worn cameras are known worldwide to provide critical transparency and accountability, offering both law enforcement and civilians a clear, unbiased account of police encounters. If such technology were widely implemented in Jamaica, it could help ensure that police officers are held accountable for their actions, while also reassuring criminals that there is a record of what transpired during a confrontation. In turn, this could encourage more criminals to surrender peacefully, knowing that they would have their day in court rather than risk being killed in a firefight.

An example of this principle occurred in Spalding on December 8, 2024 when four gunmen made headlines after surrendering to the police. The gunmen fired at the police when challenged and a chase ensued. They sought refuge in a building and were cornered by the police. The gunmen took to social media to plead with the authorities not to kill them, knowing that their every word and action was being broadcast to the world.

The introduction of body cameras in Jamaica would not only benefit the police by offering protection against unfounded allegations of misconduct but would also provide a vital tool to deter violent confrontations between the police and criminals. With the camera acting as a silent witness, both sides would be more likely to act in a manner that upholds the rule of law and justice.

The footage captured by these devices can be used to investigate incidents in which the use of force was involved, helping to determine whether it was justified. Furthermore, such footage can act as a deterrent, with criminals aware that their actions are being recorded for future legal scrutiny. The JCF would stand to benefit greatly from this technology, ensuring that police officers are held to the high standards set out in the JCF’s Human Rights and Use of Force Policy while also reducing the number of deadly encounters with criminals.

The recent incident involving the four gunmen who surrendered peacefully is a powerful reminder of how transparency can change the behaviour of both police officers and suspects. As the JCF continues to confront the issue of allegations of extrajudicial killings and violent crime, body cameras could provide a solution to foster trust, protect lives, and promote justice for all.

The use of body-worn cameras will not stop criminals from engaging the police with deadly force when challenged. In these circumstances the police have an inherent right, indeed a duty, to respond with superior, deadly force to stop the threat. We, too, want the police to win, but in doing so we wish to be assured that the Independent Commission of Investigations (Indecom) has all the necessary information to reach a definitive conclusion.

How quickly we implement the use of body-worn cameras as a standard operating procedure will be an indication of the level of our commitment to transparency and accountability in police operations.

Remember, the ability of the police to fight crime effectively continues to depend on the public’s perceptions of the legitimacy of the actions of police officers.

Hardley Lewin

hmclewin@gmail.com