There are many facets of crime such as white collar, property, organised, high-tech and violent, which manifest in the alarming number of murders, whether gang-related or not.

Many, including politicians, attorneys, judges and policemen, have been victims of crime, yet the focus seems to be on “getting the criminals or decreasing crime”.

Is there a national outrage regarding crime, or does it suit the interests of influential persons and entities to propagate crime? Who or which entity has been championing the root cause of crime and proposing solutions? The Judiciary? The legal association? Any attorney? The businesses? Does the almighty dollar supersede curtailing crime?

Unless the risk factors that cause crime and solutions are proffered, the crime situation remains “spinning top in mud”. Decrying murders seems simply attention-getting rather than bona fide intent to do something positive about crime.

Different governments have been touting that they have the plan to tackle crime. Is it in the interests of a government to curtail crime, or is it vote catching to talk about a plan to reduce crime?

Protecting property, including oneself, and ensuring laws are adhered to are key facets of any government. Knowing how many gangs exist, seemingly drafting laws to address gangs and crime, without any real action but white-washing or concealing the truth about crime seem para­mount in the eyes of those entities charged with the responsibility to address crime.

How serious is the Judiciary when purported criminals are languishing in prison awaiting a trial, or are on bail for decades?

Is the need to represent a supposed criminal more important than putting a stop to criminal activity? Or is the presumption of innocence resulting in a criminal committing many crimes?

What is the limit? One would expect that two alleged crimes should be the limit to being on bail.

Who or which entity pursues remedial action or a speedy trial?

Are the relevant university lecturers, criminologists, religious institutions, non-governmental organisations, Judiciary, attorneys and media houses earnestly seeking to address crime?

Or is it sufficient to speak about crime when it occurs, and wait for the “nine-day wonder” to pass so that it can be business as usual?

Realistically, what has been happening is talk, more talk, seeming outrage to satisfy the public, knowing full well no real action would be taken, and Trinbago accelerating its progress to being one of the most crime-infested countries in the world!

Very many reports on addressing crime have been done over decades, but the Government sees it fit to commission yet another report on crime.

Is it really serious about addressing crime?

If it is serious, the Government must set up a team or committee to address the recommendations of the ­myriad crime reports, and actively track progress of these recommendations.

The National Security Council or Ministry of National Security seems incapable of curtailing crime and they clearly are clueless in combating crime, so the new committee, comprising no more than seven persons, should have one or two representatives from the ministry and the rest from criminologists, the Judiciary, Law Association, social services, businesses and education.

Progress should be reported monthly to the nation in a nationwide address by the prime minister. This will provide an element of confidence in the population, and the sitting Government will certainly benefit.

Short of this initiative, the Government will continue to blame the Opposition, the Opposition will continue to blame the Government, ill-thought statements will be made by persons regarding the crime situation in Trinidad and Tobago, reports on crime will be valueless and crime will continue to escalate into being a health hazard and will firmly take root.

Talk is cheap! Will crime continue to be a nice talking point, or are the Government, Opposition and other entities serious about curtailing crime?