Pubdate: Thu, 20 Apr 2006
Source: Winnipeg Free Press (CN MB)
Copyright: 2006 Winnipeg Free Press
Contact:  http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/502
Author: Gordon Sinclair Jr.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/coke.htm (Cocaine)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?188 (Outlaw Bikers)

IS PM CLEANING UP JUSTICE, OR TROLLING FOR VOTES?

YESTERDAY Prime Minister Stephen Joseph Harper stood at the podium in 
the cavernous Winnipeg Convention Centre and, like a steely-eyed 
sheriff from some spaghetti western, vowed to clean up Canada.

All that was missing was the famous whistling riff from the Hang 'Em 
High soundtrack.

As politicians tend to do when they can choose their audience, the 
prime minister was preaching to the converted at the Manitoba 
Chambers of Commerce luncheon.

Not that most Canadians would argue with his general theme. How could 
anyone question a new government that wants to get serious about 
targeting the menace, "Guns, gangs and drugs."

That was Harper's mantra yesterday.

"Guns, gangs and drugs." Canada's new law and order prime minister's 
evangelical zeal for going after the organized crime hombres who run 
drugs in this country plays well to any crowd outside of a Hells 
Angels clubhouse.

But sitting there amidst a largely adoring audience, I couldn't help 
but get the uneasy feeling that -- beyond what was unquestionably an 
agenda based on a genuine believe in rigid, old-fashioned 
eye-for-an-eye justice -- there was also a sense of manipulation and 
perhaps even a hint of the disingenuous.

Using scare tactic phrases like "terror" in our streets, smacks of 
manipulation.

And then in the context of giving police and prosecutors the "tools" 
they need -- whatever that means -- the prime minister spoke of 
"putting an end to conditional sentences."

In other words, an end to what some see as soft-on-crime house arrest.

Judging by the applause meter, the audience -- to its credit -- was 
less enthusiastic about that plank in Harper's platform.

The prime minister went on to refer to "the current process of 
allowing some criminals who have committed violent sexual, weapons or 
drugs offences to serve out their sentences at home" and called it 
"unconscionable."

Under Canada's new national government, he continued, serious 
offenders would serve out their sentences where they should. Behind bars.

But how often do serious criminals who commit serious crimes really 
end up doing their sentence under house arrest?

The term "serious crime" can be subjective, of course, but a person's 
criminal record isn't.

Clearly the use of guns, and the horrific consequences of drug 
trafficking or sexual predators, are crimes that should be taken 
seriously by our governments and courts.

But, despite the public perception, in large measure "serious" crime 
already is treated seriously.

The facts are that the current Criminal Code dictates that no one who 
is sentenced to prison time -- that is two years or more -- is 
eligible for "house arrest" now.

Coincidentally yesterday, there was a story in the paper about a 
21-year-old Winnipeg man who was given a conditional sentence.

He had pled guilty to three robberies where there were no weapons 
involved, no threats uttered, and where he didn't even wear a disguise.

The young man, who grew up in River Heights but dropped out of high 
school, had been working and supporting his girlfriend in school when 
she and her family introduced him to cocaine. Eventually, under the 
threat of bodily harm, he resorted to the robberies to pay off his drug debts.

In the end he paid off what he stole, too, went to drug counselling 
and has been clean since he was arrested nearly two years ago.

Is robbery a "serious" crime?

Of course.

But, given his background and what he's done to help himself since, 
what useful purpose would be served in sending him to jail, where he 
could easily become reinvolved in drugs and be led into a life of crime?

Associate Chief Justice Jeffrey Oliphant saw it that way, too.

He sentenced him to two years less a day, which made him eligible for 
a conditional "house arrest" sentence.

Imprisoning the young man, Oliphant said, could destroy or 
significantly damage his opportunity for rehabilitation.

And rehabilitation, after all, is what we all hope will be the 
ultimate outcome for the offenders in our justice system. Don't we, 
Mr. Prime Minister?