We subjectively subscribe to the African proverb, that “It takes a village” to successfully raise a child, and to a limited point to protect children. It would seem logical to apply the principle to solve crimes.
Yet, it isn’t widely accepted. The protection of the community or village warrants the same vigilance as the protection of our children.
Unfortunately, as with some children, when it comes to some crimes, the eyes and the mouths of the village are closed. Sometimes, very tightly. The village can become the biggest deterrent to its own safety. Although it is unreasonably expected, law enforcement alone cannot solve every crime.
Even with the best science and technology and the most skilled and experienced human resources, that is not always enough. It truly takes a village.
Very early into day one of this new year, the most serious crime was committed against our village. Two young lives were taken and others wounded. An intentional wanton disregard for human life was carried out in front of a sizable group of people, a sub-village. A quiet village.
And as disheartening as the reluctance to speak up is, it is equally understandable to acknowledge the law of self-preservation. When standing up for the good of the village conflicts with the possibility of risk to your own life, it becomes a perplexing dilemma. It becomes a question of whose peril matters least.
Law enforcement’s call, “Help me help you” to the village too often goes unanswered. The reaction to protect self in the form of silence may be instinctual, while detrimental to the village. The “code of silence” becomes as big a threat as the actual crime. However, consequentially, it may have some merit.
To the naked eye, a code of silence looks bad. However, the effectiveness of some organizations may depend upon it. Our government, big and small, operates under a code of silence. Business does, too. And, understandably, so does the village.
The injurious result of breaking the code of silence or snitching is commonplace. Whistleblowers get fired and blackballed or have to flee the country. Witnesses to serious crime can suffer the same or greater fate as the initial victims.
We can be dismayed but not be shocked when witnesses cover their eyes, ears and mouths. The risk-to-reward has to be considered. Especially, when it comes to something as serious as witnessing a murder. The majority of society wants the perpetrator caught and put away. But, the trust of that happening has long been lost.
Too many crimes go unreported because the support given to the law is not always reciprocal. There are no guarantees of safety to the silence breaker.
Even when the best cooperation between law enforcement and the village prevails, murderers aren’t always held accountable to the full extent of the law and those that are may not pay long enough. Too many killers and other serious criminals make deals and walk free. The odds of protection from the future justice-impacted-individual(s) one may speak out against has to be considered.
I respect and admire those who speak up to the benefit of our community’s safety. And I understand those who may not. I also accept the results of law enforcement’s best efforts that are limited by the lack of help from the community.
The ever-growing leniency and compassion for criminals can be discouraging. It can appear that those who do wrong have more rights than those who are law-abiding.
We might be at a point when instead of police asking the public to help it to help the community, it may have to take a paraphrased position of, “Village don’t want no help. Village don’t get no help.”
Certainly, no trustee of public service would espouse such a position. But, I would definitely understand it.
https://daily-journal.com/opinion/jackson-why-help-me-help-you-often-goes-unanswered/article_4e26fdee-ceb1-11ef-a0a4-0be57f977684.html