Pubdate: Mon, 15 May 2006
Source: Province, The (CN BC)
Copyright: 2006 The Province
Contact:  http://www.canada.com/theprovince/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/476
Author: John Martin, Special to The Province
Note: John Martin is a  Criminologist

THE WAY CRITICS GO ON, YOU'D THINK HARPER WAS BRINGING BACK HANGING

It has been quite amusing listening to the critics dump on the federal
government's criminal justice reforms.

The proposed legislation would do little more than impose mandatory
incarceration for specified gun and drug related crimes, and eliminate
house arrest as a sentencing option for violent and sexual offenders.

But that hasn't stopped a parade of academics, activists, lawyers and
journalists from acting as though Prime Minister Stephen Harper was
bringing back the noose.

Apparently a populace that is grateful for overdue action in this area
is misinformed and not capable of understanding the complexities of
what's really going on.

Of all the naysayers, no constituency has been more vocal in its
opposition to the Conservative proposals than the academics;
especially criminologists. It's worth noting that of the dozen or so
criminology professors to which the media routinely turn for supposed
expert and informed commentary, only a couple are trained crime analysts.

The rest are mostly non-practising lawyers and an assortment of tired
Marxists, unaware they were summoned to the tar pits of irrelevancy
some time ago.

This hardly comes as a surprise, though. Criminologists were united in
their condemnation of Rudy Giuliani's crime reduction strategy and
transformation of New York. The crime rate plummeted
nonetheless.

They were once again outraged when California introduced a host of
mandatory sentencing measures. Thousands of repeat offenders were
locked up and crime went into free-fall.

Now they're determined to discredit the Harper plan and, assuming the
bills become law, the "experts" will again have egg on their faces.

The most common whine from the "it'll never work" club is that
mandatory prison time won't deter. So what?

It cracks down on the repeat offender who has not responded to
leniency, periodic custody or treatment.

It removes the worst of the worst from society and takes the
incorrigible out of circulation for a significant time period.

As the saying goes, when they're doing time -- they're not doing
crime.

While police were cracking down on low-lifes in Times Square,
academics argued for the legalization of all drugs.

When judges in California were compelled by law to start sending
chronic offenders to prison, criminologists were belly-aching that the
justice system was racist.

While co-ordinated law enforcement units were busting Toronto drug
houses, the experts pressed for more late-night basketball courts.

So, apparently the research says mandatory sentencing doesn't work.
Therefore it's a bad idea.

Meanwhile, every evaluation of the gun registry concludes it's a flop
and gun crime has increased since its inception. But, dumping the
registry is a bad idea, too.

It would appear tenure means never having to say you're silly.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Derek