VIOLENT crimes, property crimes and narcotics-related offences have risen since the suspension of arrests under the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (Poca) following a Federal Court ruling in 2022, according to the deputy home minister as reported recently.
Such an increase raises important questions about the role of preventive laws like Poca in deterring crime.
To assess the law's effectiveness, it is crucial to understand its intended purpose, its application and how it interacts with crime patterns.
Poca, which allows for preventive detention without trial, was designed to target individuals suspected of serious crimes, including organised crime, terrorism and narcotics trafficking.
Under the act, authorities could arrest and detain individuals for up to two years without formal charges or trial.
The law was seen as a tool to disrupt criminal organisations and reduce crime rates by incapacitating known and repeat offenders.
Poca was intended to incapacitate high-risk individuals suspected of involvement in violent or property crimes, as well as narcotics-related activities, with hope that the overall crime rate would decrease.
However, statistics after the suspension of this preventive mechanism suggest an increase in criminal activity, particularly in the above-mentioned categories.
One explanation is that the deterrent effect of preventive detention has been lost, therefore criminals might feel emboldened to commit crimes.
This could be particularly relevant in organised crime cases, where leaders and key operatives are often detained under Poca.
Thus, the increase in violent crimes could be partly due to the release of individuals who might have been part of organised violence or gang-related activities.
Poca's ability to incapacitate such individuals before they engage in further violence might have been a factor in its previous effectiveness.
Property crimes may rise when individuals previously deterred by Poca's preventive measures feel less constrained.
This may especially affect repeat offenders or those in larger syndicates, who could exploit the gap created by the law's suspension.
Narcotics trafficking and distribution often involve organised groups, and the suspension of Poca might have allowed key figures in these networks to operate with greater freedom.
Despite its intended purpose, Poca has faced significant criticism over the years.
The main concern is the potential for abuse of power, as the law allows for detention without trial, limiting the right to a fair legal process.
This has raised human rights concerns, with critics arguing that Poca could be used to detain individuals without sufficient evidence or judicial oversight, potentially leading to wrongful detention.
Additionally, there is an ongoing debate on whether such preventive measures address the root causes of crime.
Poca does not necessarily address underlying factors like poverty, unemployment, social inequality or inadequate drug rehabilitation programmes, which contribute to the cycle of crime.
The law's effectiveness is thus limited if it is not complemented by other social and economic reforms.
Although Poca's suspension seems to have had a direct impact on crime rates, suggesting that preventive detention indeed played a role in crime deterrence, its effectiveness in the long term remains debatable.
While higher crime rates after Poca's suspension indicate that it might have had a short-term deterrent effect, the overall impact on crime prevention is likely more complex.
Realistically, crime prevention requires a multifaceted approach that goes beyond detention.
Long-term solutions need
to address the root causes of criminal behaviour, along with better and strategic law enforcement, rehabilitation and treatment programmes, community policing, and social welfare policies.
Poca was never a comprehensive solution to the broader issues of crime.
Nonetheless, its suspension highlights both the importance of preventive laws and the limitations of relying solely on such measures.
To reduce crime effectively, a more holistic approach is needed, combining legal measures like Poca with social interventions, strategic policing, rehabilitative programmes, and better community engagement.
A civil democratic society like Malaysia must find a balance between addressing crime and protecting civil liberties.
While Poca may be a tool for crime prevention, it should be used with caution and accompanied by strong safeguards to prevent abuse.
An alternative could be to invest in strengthening the police force, improving its capabilities and ensuring that organised crime is tackled through effective law enforcement and judicial processes.
Ultimately, the question is whether preventive measures like Poca are truly necessary in a well-functioning, professionally trained police force, or if the same goals can be achieved by improving existing legal and law enforcement structures.
A professional, accountable, and transparent police force should ideally be sufficient to address most criminal threats without resorting to laws that undermine individual freedoms.
The writer is a criminologist at the Centre for Policy Research, Universiti Sains Malaysia