Pubdate: Thu, 11 May 2006
Source: Victoria Times-Colonist (CN BC)
Copyright: 2006 Times Colonist
Contact:  http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/481
Author: Michael T. Mulligan
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing)
Note: Michael T. Mulligan is a lawyer in Victoria.

FEAR TRIUMPHS OVER REASON IN JUSTICE BILLS

The two criminal justice bills recently introduced by Conservative 
Justice Minister Vic Toews will, if passed, reduce the availability 
of conditional sentences and require mandatory minimum jail sentences 
for a number of offences.

These bills are a triumph of the politics of fear over policies of 
reason and experience.

The political argument for these bills can be found in the preamble 
to the second bill, which states as a premise that there is 
increasing violence involving firearms in Canadian communities.

This political starting point is simply false. Statistics Canada 
reports that between 1994 and 2004 there were decreases in all 
categories of violent crime. The decreases were significant: The 
number of assaults fell by 18.1 per cent, the number of robberies by 
14 per cent, the number of sexual assaults by 32 per cent.

Conditional sentences, which usually involve offenders being placed 
under strict house arrest conditions, were introduced as a sentencing 
option in 1996.

Judges are only permitted to utilize a conditional sentence when they 
conclude that the offender will not endanger the safety of the 
community. If any of the conditions imposed by a judge are not 
followed the offender can be sent to jail to serve the balance of his 
or her sentence. While serving conditional sentences offenders are 
expected to work to support themselves and their families.

Mandatory minimum jail sentences, on the other hand, have been shown 
to be an abject failure where they have been tried. In the United 
States, where they have been used extensively, their staunchest 
supporters have become the companies who run private prisons and 
prison guards' unions.

It is not hard to understand why: In the United States, where 13 
states have introduced mandatory minimum sentencing laws, there are 
more than 2.2 million people in jail. Despite having this number of 
people in jail the murder rate in the U.S. is three times higher than 
in Canada. The rate of serious assaults is more than twice as high as 
in Canada.

The Conservatives are budgeting more than $250 million to pay for 
additional spaces in federal prisons as a result of these 
initiatives. This does not include the cost to the provinces, which 
run jails for offenders serving sentences of less than two years. It 
costs British Columbia $146 per day per offender for incarceration. 
That's more than $53,000 per year per person.

The basic premise of mandatory minimum sentences is that judges are 
incapable of imposing appropriate sentences tailored to the offender 
and offence. In my experience as a lawyer this is simply not the case.

It is not possible to achieve justice with an inflexible, mechanical 
approach. Where the government is dissatisfied with a particular 
sentence it already has a remedy: An appeal to a higher court to 
request that the sentence be increased.

We can only hope that the opposition parties will choose reason and 
experience over the politics of fear and prevent the passage of this 
ill-considered legislation.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman