By Ambassador Dr. Clarence E. Pilgrim
As one of the many trained firearms licence holders, I carry that responsibility for personal protection, but I have never regarded a firearm as something I would wish to use. I sincerely hope the only occasions on which I ever handle mine remain controlled practice sessions.
Yet there is an uncomfortable contrast in our society: While law-abiding citizens undergo training, licensing and regulation to possess firearms legally, there is continuing evidence of illegal firearms in circulation, often in the hands of persons operating outside that system of accountability.
Across Antigua and Barbuda and the wider Caribbean, crime and gun violence can sometimes feel like the old television series “Gunsmoke” — justice as spectacle: swift, simplified and dramatic. But unlike television, where a smoking gun appears on cue, real justice depends on evidence, due process and restraint.
Gun violence is serious, but it is only one manifestation of broader criminality. Crime today also includes homicide, robbery, burglary, violence, trafficking in persons, drug trafficking, fraud, cybercrime, organised criminal activity and other unlawful acts. The Caribbean therefore faces a broader crime challenge.
The real contest is not between being “tough” or “soft” on crime. It is between a justice system that merely reacts and one intelligent enough to learn, adapt and prevent repetition.
People understandably ask: Where is the law? Where is justice? Who protects the law-abiding citizen?
Those are legitimate questions. But the answer cannot be vigilante justice — punishment outside the safeguards of due process.
A firearm in responsible hands is an instrument of last resort, not authority. The same principle applies to the State: Crime must be confronted firmly, lawfully and with respect for constitutional rights.
Crime Is Changing
Criminal methods, technology and organised networks evolve. Cybercrime, fraud and trafficking can cross borders with speed and sophistication. Our laws and institutions must therefore evolve as well.
Antigua and Barbuda provides an instructive snapshot. From Jan. 1 to Aug. 31, 2025, 2,163 offences were recorded, including 40 aggravated robberies and 12 attempted robberies.
These figures should be read not merely as totals, but as indicators of the nature and seriousness of criminal activity. Statistics should identify which crimes demand attention, how many offenders return to crime and which interventions work.
Without reliable evidence, justice becomes reactive rather than strategic.
The Living Law
This brings me to what I call the living law.
Law cannot merely exist in statute books. A living law is law visibly functioning: police responding professionally; investigators gathering evidence competently; prosecutors presenting properly prepared cases; judges independently applying the law; and correctional institutions protecting society while pursuing rehabilitation.
A living law must also be current. Legal definitions, evidential requirements, sentencing ranges and enforcement mechanisms should be periodically reviewed against changing criminal behaviour. The law must live in the same century as the crime it seeks to control.
But adaptation must never mean improvisation. The living law changes through evidence, lawful process and institutional discipline — not pressure, passion or expediency.
The criminal justice system must be proactive and informed by reliable evidence on crime trends and recidivism. Statistics should never determine guilt or dictate sentences.
Judicial independence is indispensable, and every case must turn on its own facts and evidence. Sentencing must remain proportionate and individualised within the law and applicable sentencing guidelines, while Parliament and policymakers examine whether the statutory framework remains responsive to contemporary crime.
Sentencing must serve punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation and protection of the public while remaining proportionate, consistent and faithful to law.
The question is not simply: Was someone punished?
It is also: Was justice done, was society protected, and was the likelihood of another victim reduced?
From Discussion to Action
Recent national discussion concerning sentencing, serious crime and repeat offending deserves calm, respectful and evidence-based consideration.
Prime Minister the Rt. Hon. Gaston Browne should be supported and credited for moving that discussion from public concern to formal written action by proposing an independent, evidence-based examination of sentencing, repeat offending and the wider effectiveness of the criminal justice system.
This is a responsible and necessary initiative.
The prime minister’s proposal recognises that public safety cannot be reduced to sentencing alone. It extends to investigations, prosecutions, prison administration, rehabilitation, criminal histories, bail and remand, repeat offending and institutional coordination, while expressly recognising judicial independence and the separation of powers.
That combination — firm concern for public safety, respect for constitutional boundaries and willingness to subject the system to independent examination — merits clear support.
A mature society should be willing to examine whether its institutions are producing the outcomes intended. Supporting such a review does not diminish the judiciary or prejudge its findings. On the contrary, an independent examination grounded in evidence can strengthen public confidence across the entire justice system.
Such discussion should never become a contest between institutions.
Parliament legislates; the executive administers policy; police investigate; prosecutors present cases; the judiciary applies the law independently; correctional institutions execute sentences and pursue rehabilitation.
No single institution can carry the burden of crime reduction alone. The better approach is institutional cooperation without institutional encroachment.
Where evidence reveals gaps between intended outcomes and actual results, institutions should review, refine and reform. That is not institutional weakness. It is institutional maturity.
Recidivism, Rehabilitation and Public Safety
A justice system cannot measure success merely by convictions or imprisonment. If offenders repeatedly return before the courts, we should understand why.
Rehabilitation must remain a genuine objective because an offender released without education, employable skills, supervision or a realistic path back into lawful society may return to crime. But persistent serious offending must equally be recognised for the danger it poses.
Justice must therefore be capable both of restoring those who can be restored and lawfully restraining those who remain a threat.
A society cannot imprison its way out of every crime problem. Families, schools, employment, mentorship and community institutions matter. Prevention is not softness. Prevention is intelligent security policy.
Yet compassion must never become an excuse for lawlessness. Those who repeatedly commit serious crimes, exploit vulnerable persons or demonstrate persistent dangerousness must face consequences proportionate to their conduct and the law.
Society has rights too: the shopkeeper to trade without robbery; the pensioner to keep a lifetime of savings; a woman to live free from violence; a child to grow up without abuse or recruitment into crime; and every family to sleep without fear.
Beyond Vigilante Justice
Vigilante justice remains dangerous. Television makes justice simple; real life does not. Evidence may be incomplete, witnesses mistaken and innocent people accused.
The strength of justice is not measured merely by severity. It is measured by our ability to identify the guilty accurately, protect the innocent, punish proportionately, rehabilitate where possible, restrain those who remain dangerous and prevent the next crime.
A living law is neither soft nor severe by instinct. It is intelligent.
For those of us legally entrusted with firearms, responsible ownership requires training, secure storage, restraint, knowledge of the law and respect for human life.
I sincerely hope my firearm continues to spend its existence between secure storage and the practice range. That would not represent weakness. It would represent success.
Peace is not merely the absence of gunfire. It is also freedom from fear — and confidence that institutions can protect us.
The objective is to strengthen the entire architecture of justice so that liberty, security, accountability and human dignity reinforce rather than compete with each other.
As we shape our response to crime, four questions should guide us:
What are we seeking to protect?
Who ultimately benefits?
What unintended harm might our decisions create?
And what kind of society will those decisions leave for generations yet to come?
We do not need vigilante justice. We need intelligent justice — swift where possible, firm where necessary, evidence-led, proportionate, independent, contemporary and humane.
That is the essence of the living law.
And when that law truly lives — in our legislation, our policing, our borders, our courts, our correctional institutions, our communities and our consciences — justice becomes more than punishment after the fact.
It becomes the disciplined work of building a safer society before the next crime occurs.
This article was originally published by Antigua News Room. Read the original article here: OPINION: Gunsmoke, Justice and the Living Law.