The current clamour for hangings may have some unexpected results?but they are not likely to include any hangings.

The call for hangings itself is something of a surprise, but far from being a novelty.

The Government promised on the election platform that it would come up with new ideas for dealing with crime. But its proposals are medium and long-term treatments, not band-aids to cover the gaping wound inflicted by the latest murders.

Works Minister Jack Warner, then, is being either very naïve or very cynical in his response to the latest wave of public anger and fear over the fact that violent crime continues unabated. Still relatively new to electoral politics, Mr Warner may genuinely be trying to give the people what they want: a quick and drastic reaction to a crisis.

Or he may be knowingly guilty of brandishing a large red herring. The People's Partnership manifesto shows signs of trying, like Mr Warner, to respond rapidly to public sentiment. The section on "crime reduction and human security" was influenced by the mood of the election campaign, which was fought on the issue of government corruption. So the manifesto promises, "The first step we will take involves addressing the issue of white-collar crime and corruption."

So said, so done. Attorney General Anand Ramlogan has zealously commissioned investigations into Petrotrin, the Sport Company, T&TEC, and the Scarborough Hospital, among other things.

Meanwhile, however, the population has moved on, and is now demanding that something be done in response to the most recent killings.

The Government's manifesto also addresses "the fundamental challenges of effective management of the institutions of law and order"; the ponderous language alone tells you that that will take a while.

But the people want something done to stop violent crime now. Pace Mr Warner, however, it may be impossible to hang anyone legally.

The last Government tried, in 2005, when Attorney General John Jeremie said the State would "do everything within its power" to hang everyone on death row. Two days later, a death warrant was read to Lester Pitman, who was condemned the previous year for the 2001 Cropper murders.

But despite the PNM Government's best efforts, Mr Pitman?who had an appeal pending at the time?is yet to be hanged, like everyone else on death row.

A misunderstanding about why it's so hard to hang murderers led a frustrated Mr Warner to say he was going to ask the Attorney General "what?we must do so as to free ourselves from these international organisations which try to frustrate the law of the land".

What organisations was he talking about? Under the 1995-2001 UNC government, this country withdrew from the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

As for the Privy Council, its rulings don't "frustrate" the law: they are part of the law. To change the law, of course, would mean going to Parliament; and that could get very awkward.

There's no mention of hanging in the Government's manifesto, though it says, with an air of disapproval, "Punitive sanctions alone will not solve the crime problem."

Is there a consensus on capital punishment in the coalition Government? One Government Senator has posted an abolitionist quotation on his Facebook page. Former UNC senator Verna St Rose Greaves, now a Government adviser, has also declared her objection to the death penalty?at which Mr Warner was most put out.

Her stance has been misrepresented as a "threat"?but if you don't stand by your principles, what's the point of claiming to have them?

Could a consensus?or at any rate a unanimous vote?be imposed? Would there be resignations from the Government on matters of principle?

Or is Parliament ready for votes of conscience? That would mark a huge, liberating change from the current pose of ironclad unanimity on everything. It would cause problems of its own, though, in a tiny Parliament where a handful of errant votes could topple a government.

There's another potential embarrassment in store.

The idea of ending the jurisdiction of the Privy Council has of course been raised before. It was to have been replaced as the country's highest appellate court by the Caribbean Court of Justice, set up in 2001 and headquartered in Port of Spain.

The PNM has supported that change, partly because the Privy Council has stood in the way of the death penalty. A court based in the region, it was felt, would be more in tune with local popular opinion on the issue.

But the PNM government could never get the majority it needed?because the UNC opposed it. The UNC government set up the CCJ, but the party later refused to vote for it to replace the Privy Council, saying it had doubts about the regional court's independence.

So to make hangings legally feasible, the UNC would have to do a dramatic about-turn.

There's another possibility, too, though: that Mr Warner will repeat his call, that the law will stand in the way of any hangings taking place?and then Government and people alike will move on to next week's news.