Editoriial :: The St. Kitts-Nevis Observer

Increasingly over the last three years we have seen an upsurge in violent crimes in the federation. There was a time not too long ago when jaws would drop if murders reached double figures. No more. It is as if acceptance or tolerance has become the norm. By no stretch of the imagination are we saying that this is so, just that it appears that way.

Our protective services are doing their best that they can with the resources they have.

Many citizens have formed themselves into neighborhood watch groups.

Unfortunately many among us cast blame on the government as if the government can be held responsible fo r the escalation in criminal acivities.

Crime tears at the roots of any civilized society. Victims see families traumatized and property damaged or destroyed. Perpetrators find themselves outside the realm of normal life, consigned by their deeds to a seedy circle of like-minded individuals who contribute nothing of value to the world.

On an economic scale, crime takes away what has been earned by honest work. On a broader level, crime has begun to hurt tourism, the financial services industry, investment and development. Already we have begun to see expats selling out and leaving. Others are openly talking about the option. No one wants to put their lives or their money into an unsafe, dangerous place. Consider the Natalee Holloway situation

in Aruba which left that country's tourism industry almost crippled.

All of this leads to the question: Where is the outrage?

Crime rises where it is tolerated and it is obviously being tolerated to a great degree by the people of the Federation. When public outrage reaches the point where criminals - the individuals who commit the crimes, the real persons, not just a name in the newspaper or a statistic - are literally shunned by law-abiding citizens, crime will decline. That's because criminals have to live somewhere, they have to buy and sell things, they have to eat - all the activities practiced by people who abide by the rules of society. And make no bones about it, the criminals are known. Yes, the politicians, the police and the courts could all do more, but it appears to be increasingly pointless to call on the authorities to do more. They all say they are doing what they can do and they all promise they will do more; yet the blood continues to flow and the crimes against property continue to flourish.

It would be irresponsible and morally reprehensible to suggest anyone break the law in an effort to better enforce the law. However, it is reasonable to suggest that one way to bring crime under control is for good citizens to shun those who break the law.

This has worked before. As Wikipedia explains, "The word boycott entered the English language during the Irish "Land War" and is derived from the name of Captain Charles Boycott, the estate agent of an absentee landlord, the Earl Erne, in County Mayo, Ireland, who was subject to social ostracism organized by the Irish Land League in 1880. In September that year protesting tenants demanded from Boycott a substantial reduction in their rents. He not only refused but also evicted them from the land. Charles Stewart Parnell, in his Ennis Speech proposed that, rather than resorting to violence, everyone in the locality should refuse to deal with him. Despite the short-term economic hardship to those undertaking this action, Boycott soon found himself isolated-his workers stopped work in the fields and stables, as well as the house. Local businessmen stopped trading with him, and the local postman refused to deliver mail. . . On December 1, 1880 Captain Boycott left his post and withdrew to England, with his family."

It is time to boycott criminals in further effort to bring back a peaceful society.