“Dem a di prablem, fi de high crime”
Some Jamaicans habitually use the above quotation in a pejorative manner about deported individuals. This ideographic has seemingly crept into the psyche of the average person. So much so that many peoples are promoting their individualized positions on the issue as ontology. Therefore, when Professor Headley’s findings on the “politics of deportees” were published on September 27, 2004, that there is no correlation between crime and deportees, the universalized myth of the past was challenged. This begs the question, why have people juxtaposed deportees to the island on the crime figures in order to explain Jamaica’s high homicide statistics.
The writer being a resident Jamaican for approximately thirty-four (34) years has listened to plethora of discussions on crime and violence. Many of those discourses have centred on measures of understanding the crime phenomenon and its prevention. From this standpoint, it is apparent that crime is at the zenith of Jamaica’s present social dilemma. The post-1990 discourse has been primarily on deportees. This may explain why many people have accepted the myth that the deportees are the “root” of the society’s high homicide statistics. Is this really the case?
The writer presumes that this may explain why politicians have now joined the band of proponents who advocate on the premise that the deportees explain the crime dilemma within the society. Therefore, Professor Headley’s et al (2004) report on issue is timely but highly controversial. Politicians and other individuals within civil society have condemned the report. Headley is a distinguished social scientist with approximately three (3) decades of experience in criminology.
Although Dr. Headley’s findings were primarily from secondary data, and that he and his colleagues did not collect it themselves, this is a make for impersonality. Impersonality is critical component upon which normal science relies for its validity. By so doing, the researcher’s own subjective position does not bias the data set. Therefore, the results give a better and close proximation of the reality. This indicates that Headley’s findings must have some merit. Nevertheless, the report must be understood contextually in order that we garner a better comprehension of findings within their limitations.
The writer will first present some of the findings and arguments of the presenter (Professor Headley) after which he will analyze them. Headley forwarded that of the 12, 036 deportees to have extradited to Jamaica since 1997 and 2003, approximately 70 percent of them were convicted criminals. He argued that there is a “mythology” that deportees are criminals. Of the approximately 8,425 convicted deportees (i.e. criminals), more than 70 percent of them were for drug offences (i.e. the selling of cocaine and marijuana) and miniscule number of them were for homicide offences (2.1 percent). He, further, reported that the average length of time spent by the deportees was approximately ten (10) years and that most of them left Jamaica between 0 and 10 years. Of the 3,611 non-criminal deportees, approximately 37 percent of the total numbers deported were for visa and other immigration offences.
Even though Headley et al (2004) report findings that were from data forwarded by an external source to which they were not privy to its methodology, the presenter cited a survey that was conducted by the Ministry of National Security (M.O.N), Jamaica, on a cohort of “real” deportees over a number of years. One of the primary finding from the M.O.N research was that deportees contributed to approximately two (2) percent of the homicide statistics. He forwarded other such surveys done in Trinidad and Tobago and other localities in the Caribbean, in which a real cohort of deportees were surveyed over a number of years and that they explained only one (1) percent of the homicide figure of the society. This begs the question, why is there a “mythology” of the deportees and their contribution to the crime statistics in Jamaica?
The writer must quickly forward the position that Dr. Headley’s et at (2004) findings were from data gathered by the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) of the United States, and that the US is the country with the deportation policy and that this could foster us understand one reason for the findings justification. On the other hand, the presenter argued that the crime statistics is marginally explained by the deportee phenomenon. The writer believes that this solely cannot be any scientific rationale for a justification of a generalization in regards a non-correlation of the variables. The fact that he is not cognizant of the research design, speaks to a limitation of his findings that he alluded to throughout the findings. Headley in seeking to add credence to their findings used his subjective deportation experience and that of his sister-in-law as sample of the “politics of deportation” to justify the researchers’ findings.
Although those experiences are real and cogent, they cannot be presented within the context of being typical. As those experiences are individualized positions. This is a pre-condition within sciences for non-generalization. In addition, the writer knows that the Jamaican experience is often different from those of other epistemologies; as such, the issue must be surveyed within that construct with a primary data set design to answer the “politics of deportation”. Furthermore, the presenter accepting that the data was given to them by an external source from which the people are deported, and although this may not mitigate against the validity of the findings, that fact must be taken into consideration. Even though the findings were statistically derived, the writer is forwarding the position that the data’s revelations support the source’s action position of deportation and so “water down” the substance thereof.
On the other hand, Headley’s et al (2004) findings concur with M.O.N survey and so has merit despite the data source. The writer believes that Headley needs to follow up the INS findings with a real cohort of deportees from the data set over a number of years. By so doing, this would reveal the actual contributions of the deportees to the crime statistics. Given that Trinidad and Tobago have carried out such a study of a real cohort of deportees and a set of findings are available, the writer believes that by Headley so doing, he would provide information by way of scientific justification with less subjective bias.
The writer concurs with Headley that there is a “mythology” of the classes of deportees and the stigmatization of those individuals; and that the findings of INS/Headley’s report clearly show that many of them are extradites for non-homicide offences. Notwithstanding the previous position, the writer believes that if there are even ten “hardened” criminal deportees to our shores even though this may not explain variation in murders (according to INS data set), homicides may committed by those individuals. Therefore, we need to understand the variations of the crime statistics from an academic perspective. From this position, the writer does not subscribe to Headley’s theorizing that deportees do not explain the variation in homicide and other crimes. As the research design was about deportees from the USA and their reasons for extradition and not on a relation between deportees to Jamaica and crimes. Therefore, if the initial research design was used to indicate a correlation between the variables in Jamaica it would be non-academic and grossly deceptive. The design was not formulated to a make that prescription of any correlation between issues within the society.
Paul Andrew Bourne, MSc. (candidate); BSc. (Hons) Economics and Demography, Dip. Edu.
Graduate Assistant
University of the West Indies
Mona Campus
Kingston 7
Kingston, Jamaica
West Indies