Pubdate: Sat, 28 Mar 2009
Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)
Copyright: 2009 The Ottawa Citizen
Contact: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/letters.html
Website: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/326
Author: Dan Gardner

CRIME AND POLITICS

The essential thing to bear in mind when examining the Harper 
government's policies on crime is that they are not about crime. They 
are about politics.

I do not write this lightly. People generally believe what they say 
they believe. If the Tories say they believe their policies are 
important and necessary for the public good, we should take them at 
their word -- unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Since 
taking power, in part thanks to tough talk on crime, the Harper 
government has consistently introduced small, cheap, crowd-pleasing 
reforms at the most politically opportune moments. It has passed 
redundant laws. It has passed laws it knows will be struck down by 
the courts. It has delayed passing popular bills, preferring to keep 
them handy for the next political opportunity. And, most tellingly, 
it has refused to make serious and substantial changes that wouldn't 
be so politically sexy -- tackling the Corrections and Conditional 
Release Act, for example.

So we should be suspicious about the government's announcement that 
it will eliminate so-called sentencing discounts for time served 
awaiting trial.

Is it broadly popular? Absolutely. Will it please the Conservatives' 
disgruntled base? Certainly. Will it make streets safer or the 
justice system more just? Not in the slightest.

It's just another small, cheap, crowd-pleaser tossed out to score 
political points.

That's not to say there's no issue here. In fact, there's is a huge 
issue involved. But the Tories' plan to forbid judges from allowing 
two-for-one or three-for-one discounts -- meaning a month spent in 
jail awaiting trial would count for two or three months against the 
final sentence -- doesn't come close to touching it.

Let's start at the beginning: Every person accused of a crime is 
considered innocent until proven guilty. And we do not put innocent 
people in jail.

This is the origin of bail. If you are charged, you have a right to 
go free on bail, unless and until you are convicted at trial.

Sometimes this right must be curtailed, however, such as in cases 
where the accused clearly poses a threat to the safety of others. So 
someone accused of a crime may end up sitting in jail, awaiting his 
day in court. If he is convicted, it only makes sense that the time 
he spent incarcerated awaiting trial should count against his 
sentence. He was in jail, after all.

But why should he get a discount? Why should the month he spent in 
jail count as two months -- even three -- against his sentence?

It doesn't make any sense. Surely, this is just our ridiculously soft 
justice system finding another way to coddle criminals -- and the 
Harper government should be applauded for eliminating it.

On the surface, yes. But dig even a little deeper -- something the 
Harper government never bothers to do -- and the reality looks very different.

"Many of the institutions used to house those awaiting trial are old 
and poorly equipped. Sanitation and living conditions are primitive. 
Segregation is difficult, and security conditions designed to meet 
the requirements of the most difficult inmates must apply to all. 
This means that security in these institutions often exceeds that in 
institutions housing the convicted. Little is available in the way of 
programs. Problems of segregation and classification make even work 
or recreational programs difficult to organize."

That passage comes from the Ouimet Report of 1969, but don't think 
it's outdated. If anything, the situation is worse today.

That's because, since the 1980s, the number of people remanded in 
custody has grown rapidly. So has the time spent in remand.

In 2005, the number of people incarcerated while awaiting trial 
surpassed the number serving sentences in all provincial jails 
combined. The remand population is growing so rapidly, it is now 25 
per cent bigger than the population doing time in provincial jails.

In the latest StatsCan report, which only goes up to 2006, the number 
of inmates who spend a week or less in remand has fallen from 62 per 
cent to 54 per cent. Those who spent three or more months in remand 
rose from four per cent to seven per cent.

As a result, remand facilities tend to be overcrowded, filthy, tense, 
warehouses where inmates sit and stare at the walls 24 hours a day 
with no idea how long they'll be there. The older facilities are the 
worst but newer jails aren't much better. I've been inside the 
toughest maximum security prisons in Canada and the United States and 
Ontario's new Maplehurst jail and remand facility is as locked-down 
and scary as any of them.

Very simply, remand is hell. And that is why, so the argument goes, 
time incarcerated awaiting trial counts for more than regular time served.

But notice that the core issue here is not the sentence discount. 
It's that far too many people are spending far too long in remand: 
Bring people to trial swiftly and everything else is moot.

So why aren't the Conservatives talking about how to unclog the 
arteries of the justice system and make it work better? Because 
that's administrative reform.

No one gets excited about administrative reform. The media don't 
cover it. Crowds don't cheer it. And most importantly, people do not 
vote for administrative reform.

But denouncing the soft-touch justice system? Railing against 
criminal-coddling judges? Promising to get "tough" and deliver "truth 
in sentencing"?

Oh yes. That works.

Oh, it may not work in the sense of making streets safer or the 
justice system more just. But it sure is good politics -- and, as I 
said, that's what the Harper government crime policies are all about.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart