Increased penalty zones

Takbir Sharrieff, of Bermudians Against Narcotics (BAN), wants to add Court Street, St. Monica's Road and Cambridge Road to the list of "increased penalty zones", where violent crime is punished more severely.

Why so timid, Mr. Sharrieff? A shooting or machete attack on Front Street or in St. George's town square is no less serious than one on Court Street, outside a church, or at a sports ground.

There only needs to be one increased penalty zone: Bermuda.

Comments

[Uncle Elvis on 28.04.06 at 13:58]

Well put, sir.

[V on 28.04.06 at 14:24]

"Why so timid, Mr. Sharrieff? A shooting or machete attack on Front Street or in St. George's town square is no less serious than one on Court Street, outside a church, or at a sports ground."

I take your point but I don't think you're being entirely fair. Court Street, St. Monica's Road and Cambridge Road have been designated vice areas for years -- decades even. A blind eye has largely been turned to the illegal activities that take place in these locales. What the law-abiding residents of these areas have to put with on a daily (and nightly) basis would boggle your mind, Mr. Limey. A shooting or machete attack on Front Street or in the Town Square is front page news; the mini-riots that break out in these areas are seldom even reported, the pushers who sell their wares in the neigborhoods they have hijacked are rarely arrested (even less rarely charged). More power to Mr. Takbir Sharrieff for speaking out; more power to him for putting the drug barons on notice that the people living in these areas are now demanding equal enforcement of the law ...

V.

[Cynic on 28.04.06 at 14:40]

Again, yet another instance of not giving any credit to someone trying to do something. I really am giving up with this forum because its blatantly obvious that the only point is to go against the government and also against certain sectors of society.
Mr. Sharrieff should be credited for trying to bring attention to this area, rather than ignoring it as has been done before.
Also I am sure Mr Sharrieff does not mean to make Cambridge area an increased penalty zone at the expense of other areas.
Yes Bermuda on a whole should be focused on eradicating the drug problem, but within the entire country there are Increased Penalty Zones like the schools etc. This doesn't make it ok to deal drugs in other areas, it just makes the penalty worse in these special areas.

[jake on 28.04.06 at 15:14]

I am actually for legislation that would allow neighbourhoods to be zoned "No Loitering" zones.

Say if 75% of the Residents and 50% of the owners agree, it would make it illegal to sit on the wall, stand on the wall, pee on the wall...you get the picture. If you want to be a general nuisance, go home.

[V on 28.04.06 at 15:28]

"I am actually for legislation that would allow neighbourhoods to be zoned "No Loitering" zones ..."

Your suggestion has the virtue of simplicity going for it, Jake. But it would still have to be enforced. Care to take a spin with me down Court Street right now or up to "The Block" to do a headcount on the crack dealers hawking their stuff in broad daylight? If we can see them, why are they invisible as far as the police are concerned?

[jake on 28.04.06 at 15:34]

That's my point.

When the police come they throw away the drugs so it becomes an endless game of cat and mouse.

If we give the police power to say get off the block, we will begin to break the back of this cycle of decline.

It sounds so simple that it just might work (borrowed from cowboy x).

[silencedogood on 28.04.06 at 15:39]

Jake I agree with you 100% about no-loitering zones, but to increase a penalty because you attack someone or have a gun in a certain area? That seems an entirely different animal.

Cynic, at least from my perspective, I can appreciate someone trying to do something but effort alone doesn't add value.

This isn't the same thing as a penalty for proximity to a school. It relates to an area where crime is the norm and where police should be enforcing the laws already but don't seem to be doing so. In that situation an increased penalty won't help as much as enforcing the law as-is.

What happens under this law if someone has a fight on court street but, knowing the penalty will increase if they harm the person where they stand, decides to drag the other party just over the "border" and then give them a crack with the machete? Maybe the added penalty applies, maybe it doesn't.

Either way a judge, a prosecutor, and a defense attorney will have to argue over that foolishness. I say that's waste of time and detracts from the intended purpose of the law.

It also seems to assume that crime is more prevelant on court street. Why not just increase the penalty for the chosen crime, such as having a gun. It will have a disproportionate effect on court street because that's where the guns are!

Good intentions are all well and good, but a stupid law is a stupid law.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 28.04.06 at 15:48]

Limey,

I have to agree with V and Cynic, when events happen in these areas they are accepted by the rest of Bermuda, who tend to say they are glad they do not live in that area. It is expected that these areas will have the problems they have.

As V said, when events happen in these areas they are largely unreported, unlike if similar events happened on Front Street or Towne Square in St. George, or the so-called good areas of Bermuda.

I say good for Mr. Sherieff for taking a stand and bringing some long overdue attention to these areas.

In order for you to begin to see it from our perspective think of the City of London and Brixton. The same two events could occur within each district, however, the event in London will get the media attention because when it happens in Brixton it is expected.

[loki on 28.04.06 at 15:57]

As well-intentioned as Mr. Sharrieff might be, he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. The increased penalty zones are ridiculous - if you want to increase fines, increase fines, but the increased penalty zones do nothing to dissuade people from keeping drugs in any particular area because:

(a) most people have no clue whether or not they are in an increased penalty zone; and

(b) there are virtually no parts of the island that are not increased penalty zones.

To illustrate my point and Mr. Sharrieff's lack of knowledge on this issue, you should note that virtually all of Court Street (certainly, North of Victoria Street), all of Cambridge Road (aka, Gun Alley) and all of St. Monica's Road, are within increased penalty zones. I wish people would do a bit of research before opening their mouths.

[Ethiops on 28.04.06 at 16:09]

I don’t like the idea of increased penalty zones, not for one second. Neither do I like the idea of non loitering zones. Bermuda is a hang outside if it’s nice out type of island. Wouldn’t non loitering zones only push things elsewhere anyway? While I’ll admit C Street got mad problems making it non loitering wouldn’t be the best of solutions. It will only make people get craftier in their dealings. Take clean sweep for instance, when it became obvious it was in effect, dealer stopped dealing to people that they didn’t know making it impossible to get caught by undercover cops.

[V on 28.04.06 at 16:11]

"To illustrate my point and Mr. Sharrieff's lack of knowledge on this issue, you should note that virtually all of Court Street (certainly, North of Victoria Street), all of Cambridge Road (aka, Gun Alley) and all of St. Monica's Road, are within increased penalty zones."

And a fat lot of good that's done! Look, Loki, the guy may not know a lot about legal niceties but he does know what he and the law-abiding residents (probably in excess of 90 percent) of these areas have to contend with on a daily basis. If I were a crack dealer and set up shop at, say, Point Shares Bridge, I doubt I'd be in business for more than, say, 15 minutes. If I set up shop on virtually any street corner in the St. Monica's Mission area, I'm untouchable. This is the heart of the matter; this is the issue that needs to be addressed. Perhaps some of our better paid lawyers should adopt Mr. Sharrieff's organisation on a pro bono basis ...

[tilti on 28.04.06 at 16:29]

"Perhaps some of our better paid lawyers should adopt Mr. Sharrieff's organisation on a pro bono basis ... "

V, the very best lawyer in the land cannot do anything if the police service do not do anything to bring suspects to the courts. Like Elvis said, the laws that are in place are sufficiently adequate, what is lacking is the implementation. That should be Mr. Sharrieff's primary focus.

[loki on 28.04.06 at 16:34]

"Look, Loki, the guy may not know a lot about legal niceties but he does know what he and the law-abiding residents (probably in excess of 90 percent) of these areas have to contend with on a daily basis."

Like I said, I don't deny his good intentions. However, he's the spokeman for an anti-drug group and needs to do a little research before he starts calling for things that are already in place. What's the point of calling a press conference to lobby for three particular areas' inclusion as increased penalty zones when those areas are already in those zones? His time and effort would be better spent asking for increased police presence in those areas.

What has happened to Court Street and Cambridge Road, in particular, is nothing short of criminal: they need to have police sub-stations located in prominent places in these areas.

[V on 28.04.06 at 17:07]

"His time and effort would be better spent asking for increased police presence in those areas ..."

I take your point. My emotion tends to get the better of my logical faculties in this situation. Mr Mr. Sharrieff's is a lonely mission. His "organisation" consists of himself and a handful of supporters. He has hundreds of people from all walks of life walking up to him on the street, slapping him on the back, telling him they admire his work. But no one wants to get involved: the people in the afflicted areas because they either fear retribution or are inured to the drug trafficking that goes on around them, the rest of us because we don't live in these "no-go" areas. The police and lawmakers, by and large, don't give a toss because they would rather see the drug trade confined to existing vice areas rather than disperse to new haunts around the island. Sad situation ...

[Phil on 28.04.06 at 17:47]

Guilden/Cynic

If I shot a member of your family on Front Street, do you think I should get a lesser sentence than if I carried out the shooting on Court Street?

Yes or no?

If the crime is the same, the punishment should be too. That's all I'm saying.

[myshreecents on 28.04.06 at 17:50]

Loki is very right according to the law there is very little real estate in Bermuda that falls outside of the increased penalty zones. It is the police and prosecution who make the decision to add the extra charge of being within the zone. V is also right. What is allowed to happen openly in some areas will not be tolerated in others. Do you think 24/7 open drug sales and use could happen on Front street, hell no. They send out undercover cops to catch Jinks the beggar before he becomes a real nuisance to our visitors. Do you think what happens in Middletown where police sometimes refuse to come when called could take place in Tucker's Town, again hell no.
I know some will hate to hear it but I have to raise the race issue again. Historically a colonial police force/service would have been set up to protect the interests of the Crown and the colonizers.....Europeans of whites from the "savage" Negroes. Black neighbourhoods have never gotten the same attention as whites......believe it or not. Subsequently certain areas have been allowed to develop over the years into "free zones" where there is now little respect for the law because there has been no officers of the law. Unfornately this disrespect for the law is spreading and not at all helped by a police service which seems to be non existent sometimes. For far to long problems in this country have been view as their and ours.....black and white . Unfortunately in 21 square miles it doesnt take long for your problems to become mine and mine to affect you. We are all in the same boat...we will ultimately sink or swim together.

[myshreecents on 28.04.06 at 17:57]

By the way Court Street, St. Monica's Mission and Cambridge are all within increased penalty zones..... all being within the defined distances from either churches, schools or public parks

[V on 28.04.06 at 18:27]

"Black neighbourhoods have never gotten the same attention as whites......believe it or not."

I'd qualify that remark somewhat, Shreecents. While I agree with most of what you had to say as is so often the case in Bermuda, it depends which neighbourhoods you're talking about. In the old days when we had Parish Constables, the three policemen I remember from my 'hood (one white Briton, one black Bermudian, one black West Indian) all became like extended family in our community -- which was, I'd guesstimate, 80 percent black. As kids we all knew the Parish Constables (they came to our school to be introduced), we all respected the Parish Constables -- and, frankly, we tended to keep out of trouble because they knew us, where we lived and our families. Now, at the same time I was growing up in Devonshire my cousins in the Bailey's Bay area had to deal with a string of Parish Constables who cracked heads first, asked questions later. To be fair there was a pretty nasty drug gang operating at Devil's Hole at the time ('70/'71) I guess. So the police faced pretty constant provocations. But instead of trying to make friends with the locals (who overwhelmingly objected to the gang's presence and activities) the cops alienated folks who should have been their natural allies. As I recall, the Parish Constable for most of this period was in fact a black Bermudian! Ultimately the gang in question got cleared out when the riot police attacked Devil's Hole (with Commissioner George Duckett leading the charge personally). But there was such mistrust between the cops and area residents by that point that it remained pretty much a no-go area for police for many years after that incident ...

[boogie on 29.04.06 at 15:14]

Has anyone ever challenged the IPZs? I mean, how do we know that person "X" was inside an IPZ other than by a policeman's guestimation? Does the 150 metre circle around a playground or a school begin in the very centre of the property or at it's perimeter? Whatever happended with the case of a guy who was stopped for a routine traffic stop by Police and was found to have drugs. He was just passing through, was he fined to possession or possession in an IPZ?

The Limey is right, increase the penalties!

[justamysticman on 01.05.06 at 07:36]

IPZs and increased legal penalties are no deterrent to illegal drug use (witness the effect of the stiff Rockerfeller drug laws in New York state: nil)... only truthful drug education and more options for healing & recovery will work. Addiction is not a legal issue, it should be a public health issue. It will be interesting to watch how Mexico’s new, extremely liberal drug possession laws will affect the situation down there. I know the DEA is really pissed about them!

Marijuana decreases the intelligence of those opposed to its use....