Pubdate: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 Source: Montreal Gazette (CN QU) Copyright: 2006 The Gazette, a division of Southam Inc. Contact: http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/274 TORY SENTENCING PROPOSAL UNFAIR No politician ever lost votes by promising to "get tough on crime." Stephen Harper's proposal to get tougher on repeat serious offenders does meet a legitimate public concern about slack sentences. But the Conservative government's planned new "three-strikes" law is too hard a blow to the ancient doctrine that liberty should not be curtailed pre-emptively. It's important to remember that this might be merely virtual legislation. All three opposition parties are likely to balk at the idea that some criminals should have to prove they will not offend again. This would allow the Conservatives to campaign as the anti-crime party, but it would also mean the bill is not likely to pass. If it did pass, it might not survive a court challenge under the Charter of Rights. Harper says the bill, going to Parliament next week, has been drafted with existing jurisprudence in mind. Given the Supreme Court's willingness to move the goalposts in Charter cases, however, that could prove to be not good enough. But these hypotheses should not distract us from considering the proposal as it is. And in fairness, it must be admitted that this bill is much more limited than existing "three-strikes-and-you're-out" laws in California and many other states. First, this law would apply only to 11 specific serious violent or sexual crimes. Second, this law would apply only after three convictions involving federal prison time, not offences that bring jail terms of less than two years. Third, this bill would allow for a parole hearing after seven years, and every two years after that. Canada already has a "dangerous-offender" category, which carries with it an indefinite sentence and which is used only in the most extreme cases. However, at present it's the Crown that must show an individual deserves that status. The Conservative bill shifts that onus to the individual. But how can anyone prove that he will not commit another crime? Could you? We agree with Louise Botham, president of the Criminal Lawyers Association: The whole notion is "fundamentally unfair." But if this isn't the solution, what is? There truly is a problem here, as Harper demonstrated by adding crime victims' relatives to his supporting cast of police officials when he unveiled the bill. There have been too many cases of repeat offenders, blithely freed by some oblivious judge or inept bureaucrat, killing or raping again. Sentencing under existing law, easy-going early-release policies, assessment measures, all of these can and should be improved to keep more villains off the street. Would measures such as these bring down the recidivism rate? We should find out before Ottawa starts requiring anyone to prove in advance that they will obey the law. Two other measures in the Conservative proposal, less controversial ones, promise to be useful and deserve opposition support. One of these is to double the maximum period for which a judge may impose a peace bond. The other is to set up a national monitoring system that would allow authorities to keep track of released offenders who are deemed to be at relatively high risk of reoffending. - --- MAP posted-by: Derek