Pubdate: Fri, 26 May 2006
Source: Chilliwack Times (CN BC)
Copyright: 2006 Chilliwack Times
Contact:  http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1357
Author: John Martin
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing)

STILL WRONG AFTER ALL THIS TIME

It's been quite amusing listening to the critics dump on the
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 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 their opposition to the
conservative's proposals than have academics; especially
criminologists. It's worth noting that of the dozen or so criminology
professors which the media routinely turns to for supposed expert and
informed commentary, only a couple are trained crime analysts. The
rest are mostly non-practicing 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. As discussed in an earlier
column, 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 freefall. The 'experts' covered their
eyes and ears, insisting that tough measures still don't work in theory.

Now they're determined to discredit the Harper plan and assuming the
bills become law, they will surely soon have egg on their face once
more.

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 were arguing 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 coordinated law enforcement units were busting drug
houses and taking down gang-bangers in Toronto, the experts were
adamant that more late night basketball courts was the answer.

So, apparently the research says mandatory sentencing doesn't work.
Therefore it's a bad idea and we should have nothing to do with such
sentencing measures. Meanwhile, every evaluation of the gun registry
concludes it's a flop and gun crime has actually increased since its
inception. But the usual suspects continue to kick and scream that
dumping the registry would be a terrible loss and endanger the public.
Have your cake and eat it too? No rules against that in the Ivory Tower.

It would appear tenure means never having to acknowledge you're
silly.

- ------------------------------------------

- - John Martin is a criminologist at the University College of the
Fraser Valley.
- ---
MAP posted-by: SHeath(DPF Florida)