Government's response to the recent spate of murders and gun violence was revealed on Friday, but those looking for a coherent policy for dealing with gangs will be disappointed.

What the initiatives seem to be aimed at instead is at preventing the next generation of young Bermudians from entering gangs and engaging in the kind of senseless violence that has afflicted the Island. That is laudable and welcome, and it may be that tackling the gangs themselves requires a more intensive policing approach and therefore is better coming from the Commissioner of Police, the Governor in addition to the Government.

As far as the measures go, those announced on Friday are a mixed bag. Some, such as those giving the Police power to break up "anti-social behaviour" and to prevent people from wearing "hoodies" (if the intent is concealment), are apparently targeted directly at young people and may prove to be difficult to enforce. Certainly, the experience with anti-social behaviour orders in the UK has been mixed. Used properly with cooperation between agencies, and there has been some success. But it has not been universal and the system has its flaws.

The expansion of the juror pool is welcome, and may be the most effective tool in successfully prosecuting crime. On the preventive end, expanding Mirrors and homework centres are welcome. This newspaper would like to see a proper review of Mirrors conducted however, in order to measure its success. The most controversial aspect of the new package will be the laws making parents civilly (not criminally) responsible for the behaviour of their children.

Just what this will entail is not clear, and obviously it will only be effective where a lawbreaker is a minor. Where they have attained the age of majority, it will be irrelevant. It is hard not to give the Government credit for coming up with programmes that will not only tackle crime, but the causes of crime, and some of these programmes are a start. But they are a mixed bag, and there remains a lack of an overarching programme aimed at dealing with this murderous problem.

What these programmes don't seem to really tackle are the problems of under achievement in education that would go some way to encouraging children to stay off the streets and ways, aside from Mirrors, of giving young people involved in gangs a way out.

Nor does this programme increase the means of fighting the drugs trade, which helps to fund gang members' lifestyles and seems to be at least a contributory cause to the current wave of violent crime. It may be that tougher and more coordinated approaches to this problem are on their way, and certainly the recent visitors from the FBI may have helped to formulate a strategy on this, but if so, more needs to be said publicly.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this newspaper again calls for serious consideration to be given to the Ceasefire programme which has had success in the US and in Scotland, and which seems to have put together the kind of all-encompassing approach which the Government recognises is needed.