News that the Police and prosecutors will issue cautions for the possession of small amounts of cannabis or for so-called minor crimes has been greeted with cautious optimism by many.

Most notably, those who favour decriminalisation of cannabis have welcomed the step, which is in line with many western countries. This welcome has been accompanied, of course, with the caveat that such a step does not mean that cannabis should be used, or that this is condoning the use of illegal drugs. At the same time, the move has been linked, or confused, with the "Stop List", the US policy of preventing those who have committed crimes from entering the US without first obtaining a waiver.

This newspaper does not believe that jailing people for possession of small amounts of drugs, especially for a first time offence, makes much sense. Instead, a fine, probation and mandatory drugs counselling would appear to be the more sensible approach. Some of this already occurs through the Alternatives to Incarceration policy.

From a practical standpoint, it is true, as Bermuda Democratic Alliance MP Mark Pettingill pointed out, an inordinate amount of Police time and effort is taken up prosecuting these minor crimes when the Police and prosecutors have much more critical cases to pursue. However, it cannot be denied that a crime has been committed. And it cannot be denied that the people committing the crime did so in the full awareness of that fact. So the idea that there should be no consequences for their actions is hard to accept. The fact is that a caution is a warning, and warning is not a consequence.

One often gets the sense from those who rail against the Stop List that somehow the people on the list are victims of a nasty conspiracy aimed at preventing them from visiting the US or working or studying there. But this ignores the fact that for the most part, those on the Stop List committed a crime and were fully aware of what they were doing when they did so. And yet, somehow, they are the victims. Great care needs to be taken by the prosecution and the Police that the message that "a little bit of criminal behaviour" is all right and acceptable. Cabinet Office consultant Rolfe Commissiong said last week that it was often a gateway to more serious crime when people, often young black men, were jailed for minor offences.

But there is the possibility that the opposite is true. Young people who commit crime and escape with a caution may well believe that they have been given permission by society to commit more serious crimes. There is precedent for this. In the mid-1990s, Judge Stephen Tumin was brought to Bermuda to conduct a Commission on Crime. He found that people, often young black men, were being jailed for repeat traffic offences, most notably for driving while already disqualified. Time in prison was then a gateway to further crimes, and Stop Listing.

As a result, the Police, then being converted from a "Force" into a "Service", were encouraged to back off from the then-heavy policing of the roads. Sentencing for traffic offences was also reduced. If the intention was to reduce criminality, that policy has certainly not succeeded, although it can be argued that other factors have played a part in that.

Nonetheless, since then, road deaths and collisions have soared, and there has been no notable decrease in crime; quite the opposite. Bermuda is now in the midst of a crime wave that the authorities seem powerless to stop. Some consideration should be given to the idea that reducing penalties when crimes are committed may not be the answer to our current crisis.