Friday's debate on amendments to the Criminal Code may not have been the greatest debate ever in the House of Assembly, but it was far from the worst.

There was give and take between legislators and Government even accepted an Opposition amendment, raising the penalties for assaults on Police officers.

And there was basic unanimity on the need to raise penalties and to introduce penalty zones for violent crimes.

A number of Government and Opposition MPs raised valuable points, including Shadow Home Affairs Minister Maxwell Burgess, who picked up on the fact that the penalties for the most severe crimes were being increased by proportionately less than those for more minor offences.

But the best point of all was raised by Government MP Wayne Perinchief, who went against the conventional wisdom.

A former Assistant Commissioner of Police, he asked why penalty zones for violent crimes were being introduced at all. Why not just raise the penalties for all violent crimes, whether they occurred at sporting grounds or in someone's backyard?

Mr. Perinchief is right. Crime is crime, and violent crime is increasing, not just at sports grounds, but everywhere.

Indeed, the introduction of the penalty zones is a direct reaction to the horrifying scenes this spring at Wellington Oval when weapons-wielding hooligans invaded the field and did pitched battle before thousands.

In that sense, Public Safety Minister Randy Horton's legislation closed the stable door after the horse had bolted. What are not in place, and should be are preventative measures like mandatory metal detectors for all spectators and a regular Police presence.

Now, whenever a violent crime takes place in a public place, it will have to be added to the list of penalty zones. It would be better to raise the maximum penalty for these offences across the board and give judges and magistrates the discretion of meting out the maximum sentence when the offences take place in public places.

Of course, the whole debate is moot if prosecutors cannot get witnesses to testify in order to secure convictions. And that it is the biggest problem facing the criminal justice system.

The law changes passed on Friday would have been no help in the Wellington Oval case. Why not? Because no one was convicted after the main witness ? who is now facing perjury charges ? allegedly changed his story.

And on Friday, the same day the legislation was passed, attempted murder charges against three people were dropped when a key witness refused to give evidence.

Similarly, in the Tekle Mallory murder case at the Ice Queen (which was proposed as a penalty zone on Friday by one MP), no one was convicted due to the lack of witnesses ? in spite of the fact that hundreds of people were there on the night of the murder.

Mr. Horton needs to consider law and policy changes that will crack down on people convicted of perjury and people who intimidate witnesses.

Consideration should also be given to the radical step ? defence lawyers will no doubt have heart attacks over this ? of giving witness statements more weight than the evidence given on the stand by the witnesses themselves when they decide to change their stories.

Then, and only then, will increased penalties have a deterrent effect. But until convictions can be achieved, these increased penalties are not worth the paper they are written on.