When faced with a crisis, how far do you go to suspend basic rights?

That was the question that MPs addressed last Friday when debating legislation that would allow Police to detain suspects for as long as 31 days without being charged with a crime.

It is also the issue that other legislatures have faced, specifically in dealing with terrorists.

Bermuda Democratic Alliance MP Mark Pettingill and others made that comparison on Friday, and it was particularly apt for another reason as well. Bermuda risks removing long established civil liberties in a panicked rush to get a grip – and to be seen to be getting a grip – on gang members and gun crime. That is not so dissimilar to the passage of the so-called Patriot Act in the US after the September 11, 2001 and the later shameful abuses of alleged prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

That today's problems stem at least in part from the actions – and inactions of the government itself is not so different from the Bush Administration's behaviour before 9/11. The Bush Administration ignored warnings about terrorism and the Middle East. As United Bermuda Party MP John Barritt noted, the UBP was pilloried in 2007 for warning that crime was on the increase and proposing anti-crime measures that are mild compared to what passed on Friday. Then, PLP candidates, who tend to see conspiracies where others do not, claimed that if the UBP was elected, they "will lock us all up. It's true." Now the PLP is locking people up without charge. How times change.

In fact, one of the reasons why these detention orders are now being contemplated is that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, passed not so long ago with more or less unanimous support, made it impossible for the Police to hold suspects in custody for more than three days (and then only in exceptional cases) without being charged.

Now we see the opposite extreme. Instead of the minimal amount of time in custody allowed by PACE, a suspect in a gun crime can now be held for up to 31 days. But, as was pointed out on Friday, a suspect who may have beaten someone to death with a baseball bat cannot be held. Inconsistent and ill-considered lawmaking is always dangerous.

Several amendments were passed on Friday, all of them brought on the floor of the House, and this again demonstrates the haste with which this legislation was brought forward. Indeed, Opposition MPs had only a week to look at the legislation and if recent experience is any guide, backbench MPs will not have had much more time.

Thus serious and substantial amendments were made in the middle of debate. That is being trumpeted as a great demonstration of Parliament at work, but it's also an example of poor drafting and lack of consideration before the bill was tabled. More discussion beforehand of an issue which crosses party lines could have led to a better bill in the first place. The betting here is that more problems will be found with it in the future.