Pubdate: Wed, 26 Feb 2014
Source: Chronicle Herald (CN NS)
Copyright: 2014 The Halifax Herald Limited
Contact:  http://www.herald.ns.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/180
Author: Claire McIlveen
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing)

A ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL APPROACH TO JUSTICE ANYTHING BUT JUST

Imagine: You discover your 18-year-old growing marijuana or showing 
off an illegal loaded handgun to his buddies.

What to do, what to do?

Depending on the offence and the teen's previous record, as it were, 
a parent's response could range from turning him in despite his lack 
of a criminal record to resorting to grounding and withdrawal of privileges.

I'd argue the last thing most concerned parents would do is send him 
off to spend all his time with rapists, armed robbers and guys who 
beat up people for a living. Sending an impressionable youth to live 
with criminals is, in my opinion, a great way to create yet another one.

That, however, is exactly what our justice system does if someone 
breaks certain laws.

If a person is convicted of growing more than six marijuana plants, 
the judge has no option but to sentence him or her to six months in 
jail. For illegal possession of a handgun that is loaded or with 
ammunition close by, it's three years in prison.

The concept - mandatory minimum sentencing (MMS for short) - has been 
on the books in Canada for many years for crimes like murder. In 
1995, the Chretien government added a number of firearms offences to 
the list of those with mandatory minimum sentences, and in 2012, the 
Harper government's Safe Streets and Communities Act added more, 
included the two cited here.

The main push for such sentences has been from politicians, pressured 
by some members of the public, demanding harsher sentencing in the 
"commit the crime, do the time" vein.

Throwing the book at someone, the argument goes, will prevent him or 
her from offending again and will deter other would-be criminals.

The problem is, it doesn't necessarily work that way.

Canadian research on whether MMSs actually reduce crime is scarce and 
research from other countries is largely inconclusive.

But the costs of more jury trials and new jails to accommodate people 
sentenced to mandatory minimums can be huge.

California's so-called three strikes law, which imposes mandatory 
stiff sentences for a third offence, costs about an extra $5 billion 
a year in incarceration costs, according to one report on Ottawa's 
Justice Department website. The sentences also tend to target the 
"small fry" in the criminal world, leaving crime bosses untouched.

A far bigger problem than cost is injustice. The circumstances of the 
accused, how someone came to have, say, a loaded gun in his or her 
possession and the person's reasons for possessing a weapon, can 
range from the naive and foolish to the dark and deliberate.

In one three-strikes case cited last year in Rolling Stone magazine, 
two California mall security guards nabbed Curtis Wilkerson in 1995 
for shoplifting.

One of the guards wanted Wilkerson, then 33, to pay for the item and 
leave but the second insisted they call police. Because of 
convictions dating to 1981 (at 19, he acted as a lookout in a series 
of robberies), Wilkerson is now serving a life sentence - for 
stealing a pair of socks.

As politicians have pushed mandatory minimums, the judiciary has pushed back.

Some judges have ruled that mandatory minimum sentences violate 
offenders' Charter rights, and the issue may end up before the 
Supreme Court of Canada.

The Canadian Bar Association opposes the 2012 mandatory minimums that 
take away judges' discretion in sentencing.

In a 2010 submission on mandatory minimums in drug offences, the 
association says such sentences don't act as a deterrence, subvert 
the principles of "proportionality and individualization" and impede 
the ability of judges to make a just decision based on the facts of 
an individual case. They also, says the association, have "a 
disproportionate impact on those minority groups who already suffer 
from poverty and deprivation."

And, since judges must have about eight years of higher education, 
years of experience practising criminal law and do periodic upgrading 
in their fields, they are better equipped than politicians or the 
public to make wise, reasoned sentencing decisions.

Mandatory minimum sentences are unfair because they fail to take into 
account the circumstances surrounding each case. Our hypothetical 
teenager might be an OK kid starting to hang around with the wrong 
crowd or a budding career criminal with serious charges outstanding.

Those are two very different scenarios - and the punishment, imposed 
by a knowledgeable judge, should vary accordingly.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom