Following the debate in the Upper House, one would believe some of the members do not live in T&T and appreciate the seriousness of the state of crime in the land.
It is time to start thinking outside the box and suggest solutions instead of grandstanding as a defender of the Constitution, as is being done in the Senate while Rome burns.
I have a few simple questions for those who oppose stringent measures which would deny bail for a very lengthy period in certain limited circumstances.
1. What is someone doing with assault weapons?
2. When someone is allegedly held with such weapons, why should they automatically obtain bail if the evidence presented by the police at the bail hearing is convincing?
3. Where is the balance between the safety of the public and the denial of bail?
One could argue that the Magistrates have been a major part of the problem for many years and this obtains at present, so maybe the solution is for bail hearings to be transferred to a judge in chambers for such offenses and the police mandated within a period of 30 days to present compelling evidence to the judge at a bail hearing. The accused can be imprisoned in a minimum security detention centre during the 30-day period.
Surely a coming-together of all sides to address these serious issues is the common-sense approach to achieving easy passage of necessary good/strong legislation.