Pubdate: Wed, 21 Nov 2007
Source: Markham Economist & Sun (CN ON)
Copyright: 2007 Metroland Printing
Contact:  http://www.yorkregion.com/news/Markham
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2360
Author: David Teetzel
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing)

TORIES FIXING SYSTEM BEFORE WE KNOW IT'S BROKEN

Did you happen to catch Corner Gas the other night? It was a classic.

Cranky old Oscar somehow ended up as a replacement school bus driver 
and, knowing today's kids are all unruly hooligans, he imposed an 
immediate zero-tolerance policy.

After his search for booze among the clean-cut, church-going 
teenagers (who all called him "sir") turned up nothing, he banned 
reading and confiscated their pens, until he finally provoked a riot.

I wonder if Justice Minister Rob Nicholson was watching.

Mr. Nicholson has introduced a law and order bill with tougher 
sentences for young offenders, allows teenagers to be jailed from the 
time they are charged throughout their trial and imposes mandatory 
minimum sentences for serious drug crimes.

This is to address the general rise in incidence and severity of 
youth crime, according to the Conservatives. Awareness of youth crime 
tends to be high in York Region, probably because this was the scene 
of one of the landmark cases - the severe beating that left 
Newmarket's Jonathan Wamback in a coma.

And here in York Region, the youth crime rate dropped 1.1 per cent 
between 2005 and 2006 - although the actual number of violent 
incidents involving youth increased 11.2 per cent.

Police Chief Armand La Barge has cautioned residents against assuming 
"three or four young people in your neighbourhood talking or smoking 
are involved in criminal activity". The overall trend in youth crime 
across Canada is down. So why are we so scared of "out of control teenagers"?

It has a lot to do with high-profile cases that receive a lot of 
attention because they are, in fact, so unusual. Some, such as the 
eight and nine-year-old boys in Georgia charged with sexually 
assaulting an 11-year-old girl aren't even in Canada. But you don't 
have to look far in the headlines to be alarmed. A 12-year-old was 
killed in a school yard brawl in Quebec, a 12-year-old Alberta girl 
was convicted of murdering her family .. you've heard it all.

But would a tougher sentence actually serve as a deterrent in any of 
these cases? Does anyone honestly believe any of these kids 
considered the possible jail sentence before they acted?

I seriously doubt they considered anything. The new legislation 
requires judges to consider deterrence and denunciation when passing sentence.

Denunciation I get. A light sentence lets people think society 
doesn't take the crime seriously. By punishing a criminal, society 
expresses its opinion about the act.

There was a time when I'd agree deterrence was an issue, too. The old 
Young Offenders Act carried at least the perception that if you were 
under 18, you could get away with anything.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act is tougher. It does allow judges to 
impose adult penalties on youths when warranted. It leaves the issue 
to the judge's discretion.

A mandatory minimum sentence for drug offences takes away some of 
that discretion. Although it wasn't included in Monday's 
announcement, the government has said it plans to impose automatic 
jail terms on young people convicted of violent crimes. Again, that 
takes away a judge's discretion.

Now, I often disagree with judges and I've often wished they didn't 
have as much leeway. But Ottawa is being inconsistent here.

The other week, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day announced Canada 
will no longer oppose death sentences imposed on Canadians convicted 
in the United States.

In other words, American judges can be trusted to make decisions 
involving Canadians without the government of Canada getting involved.

So why can't we trust Canadian judges to render fair decisions?

It looks to me like the current legislation is striking a balance 
that works fairly well. It has been around less than five years, so 
we may only now seeing the impact.

A careful review is certainly in order (and already scheduled) and 
the legislation might very well need more work. But it would be a 
mistake to make major changes that could upset the apple cart, 
however politically popular they might be, before that review. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake