Pubdate: Tue, 28 Feb 2006
Source: Edmonton Journal (CN AB)
Copyright: 2006 The Edmonton Journal
Contact:  http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/134
Author: Ryan Cormier and David Staples
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing)

HARPER TORIES BACK TOUGHER SENTENCING

RCMP Kin Want Minimums For Drug, Gun Crimes

EDMONTON -- When the families of four slain Mounties decided to fight 
for changes to the justice system, they needed a friend in high 
political places. They have one in Justice Minister Vic Toews.

The grieving families want mandatory minimum sentences for gun- and 
drug-related crimes. James Roszko had a history of gun offences and 
ran a marijuana grow-operation that was discovered the day before he 
gunned down RCMP constables Peter Schiemann, Anthony Gordon, Brock 
Myrol and Leo Johnston on March 3, 2005.

"Roszko got into this revolving door of the criminal justice system. 
He knew how to use it," said Rev. Don Schiemann. "If we had all these 
things in place, would March 3 have happened?"

Schiemann recognizes that "you can't hit the rewind button," but he 
can't help but think of the "what ifs."

In the mid-1990s, Roszko was sentenced to five years for sexual 
assault. His sentence was cut in half on appeal in 2000. If the 
five-year sentence had been upheld, and Roszko had served the full 
time, he would have been in prison the day he killed Schiemann's son 
Peter and three others.

An increase in minimum sentencing is a priority for the new 
Conservative federal government.

"We're committed to the enactment of mandatory minimum penalties for 
gun crimes and enacting minimum prison sentences for serious drug 
offences," Toews said in an interview shortly after he was sworn in 
as justice minister.

The families also want minimums for the sexual assault of a minor and 
serious assaults on police. Roszko's record included both.

Toews stopped short of those commitments, but didn't rule them out.

"We could very well have other discussions, but right now the focus 
is on gun and serious drug crimes."

Twenty-nine offences currently carry minimum sentences, 20 of them 
for firearms offences. Other mandatory minimums apply to crimes such 
as murder and child prostitution.

The Liberals instituted many of the firearms-related minimums in 
1995, but none have been introduced since.

Minimums for gun crimes now range from one to four years, which 
Schiemann regards as "a joke." He wants criminals to receive five 
years if they commit a crime with a gun, 10 if they fire it and 15 if 
they shoot someone.

"We should have something that makes people sit up and notice before 
they put the bullets in their gun. You have to send a strong, strong 
message to the criminals."

Toews believes in mandatory minimum sentences.

"Certainly, they're a deterrent. It not only deters individuals, but 
also segregates (in jail) those individuals who nevertheless go ahead 
and use firearms."

But the deterrent value of mandatory minimums is debatable, say experts.

"What I find almost offensive is all these politicians saying we know 
mandatory minimums deter, and we don't know that," said Sanjeev 
Anand, a University of Alberta law professor. "We know the exact 
opposite, that it's not what you're going to be sentenced to that 
makes the difference, it's the chance of getting caught."

Criminals tend not to be forward-thinking enough to be deterred by 
harsher sentences, said Willie deWit, a Calgary criminal lawyer and 
past president of Alberta's criminal justice branch of the Canadian 
Bar Association.

"Most defence counsel say, and many studies show, that most people 
committing crimes, it's not something they thought about for a long 
period of time," he said. "An opportunity arises and these things happen."

For most crimes in Canada, sentencing is up to judges. Mandatory 
minimums limit judicial discretion.

"The danger is you can get a situation where a sentence that's a 
mandatory minimum becomes harder than the circumstances or the 
individual warrant in the situation," deWit said.

However, Schiemann said limiting discretion is a key benefit.

"I believe there is a bit of a crisis of credibility with our 
judicial system, as distinct from our justice system," he said. "More 
and more, the public is hearing through the news of some of the 
outrageous and almost scandalous decisions in terms of sentencing 
that judges will give for serious crimes."

The bar on sentencing is too easily lowered, Schiemann said. "Just 
because a judge is a judge, it doesn't always mean he's going to make 
the right decisions."

Courtrooms became a sore point for the families after an Alberta 
Justice review of Roszko's prosecution history showed only 14 
convictions among 44 charges. The report said Roszko never met the 
criteria to be declared a dangerous offender.

"The list of his crimes just goes on and on. If they had made him a 
dangerous offender, my son would be alive today," a sickened Doreen 
Duffy, mother of

Const. Anthony Gordon, said at the time. "What were they waiting for?"

Toews said judges' interpretations have sometimes led to house arrest 
for serious crimes. Conditional sentences would no longer be an 
option for crimes with mandatory minimums.

"I see the issue of conditional sentences and mandatory minimum 
prison sentences very much interrelated," Toews said. "What we need 
to do is send a clear message to the courts that the sentences we 
want imposed for these kind of offences -- serious gun and 
drug-dealing offences -- require incarceration."

That would put more people in custody for longer periods. The 
Correctional Service of Canada says housing a prisoner costs an 
average of $85,000 a year.

"It will be tremendously costly," said Keith Spencer, a University of 
Alberta criminologist.

He said higher incarceration rates provide the illusion of safety, 
but it seems to be something Canadians want. "We're ready to spend 
money on jails. It's a more popular approach."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman