So Many Agendas

It seems that everyone agrees that violent crime is a problem, but that doesn’t mean that we agree on the dimensions of the problem much less the solutions. There are many constituencies involved and each has its own agenda.
 
Criminals probably have the most to gain from a reduction in violence since they are disproportionately most at risk of death or injury, but criminals will not support solutions that put their core criminal business at risk. However, they can perhaps be persuaded to agree to steps to reduce the levels of intra-gang violence.
 
The mothers of criminals may want solutions that help their sons to move away from a life of crime and violence, but they will not support measures that involve extra-judicial killings or police brutality. We cannot expect mothers and other relatives to offer information to the police that put their loved ones at risk of injury or death.
 
Non-criminal people who live in dangerous neighbourhoods will not help the police if they do not trust them even though their own lives and that of their families are at risk. How could we expect them to share information with the authorities if that is likely to unleash revenge on them from the criminals? Anonymous tips appear to be the way to go even though these tips cannot help in an actual prosecution.
 
You might think that politicians at least would agree on the best actions to be followed, but this would be based on the assumption that they have similar agendas.  In fact, politicians from parties other than the governing party benefit from a public perception that the government is losing the battle against crime.  This is short sighted seeing that when an opposing party gains control it will have to deal with the crime situation that it may have contributed to.
 
Even police attitudes to crime reduction have contradictory currents. More crime has perverse rewards such as more money and technical support for the police. Solving crime brings greater recognition than preventing it in the first place. Some police even find their chosen career to be a useful to cover for their own criminal activities. Weeding out the bad cops may be a necessary step in the fight against crime, but it represents a waste of the resources that have gone into training and more importantly it undermines the cohesion of the police and reduces morale. Better to improve protocols and supervision to discourage wrong behaviour so that fewer wrongdoers have to be fired.
 
The job of the judiciary is also full of ambiguity.  Prosecutors have to rely on the evidence they obtain from the police and they must rely on the statements of witnesses.  It must be soul destroying when even the victim of a violent crime is unwilling to testify for whatever reason. It is easy to call for more forensic evidence but a fully equipped and staffed laboratory cannot be assembled overnight and would have no value if the first responders are not trained to process the crime scene properly.
 
The notoriety and feeling of power gained by the young men who are being used as the foot soldiers of the big crime syndicates are not something they will willingly give up. A gun and seemingly plentiful ammunition gives many of them a feeling of importance for the first time in their lives. With nothing much to live for, they do not fear death as much as they fear disrespect. We have to work harder to keep boys and young men in school, but this will not help those who have already dropped out of school.
 
With so many constituencies and so many agendas, there cannot be one large solution, but this does not mean we should give up. Together we must negotiate many small solutions that collectively will reduce violent crime and make our communities safer places.