Pubdate: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 Source: National Post (Canada) Copyright: 2014 Canwest Publishing Inc. Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/wEtbT4yU Website: http://www.nationalpost.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/286 Author: Marni Soupcoff Note: Marni Soupcoff Is Executive Director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, Theccf.CA. Page: A10 THROWING THE BOOK AT THE WRONG CRIMINALS It's Possible for Someone WHO Sells Marijuana to Do More Jail Time Than Someone WHO Produces Child Pornography My sense of justice is always most outraged by crimes that directly harm others, particularly when the motive is self-enrichment. With ex-London, Ont., mayor Joe Fontana's expenses forgery, we see both: Mr. Fontana left taxpayers on the hook for $1,700 that they didn't owe, and, according to the judge who sentenced him, "personal gain appears to be the only motive." Mr. Fontana is now facing four months of house arrest and 18 months of probation. There is something profoundly unsettling about this outcome. For abusing his role as a public official to make himself financially better off at others' unwilling expense, Mr. Fontana will spend no time behind bars. Yet many Canadians who commit victimless crimes, many of which provide them little or no material benefit, are sent to jail for months. An individual who grows six marijuana plants to sell to adult friends or acquaintances is currently subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of six months' incarceration. We're talking about at least half a year in jail for an action that involves no fraud or force or dishonesty, and that leaves everyone involved believing themselves better off as the result of a voluntary transaction. Just possessing more than 30 grams of pot is enough to land one in the slammer. When I think of Joe Fontana's sentence, I also think of Bruce Montague, the Ontario man who expressed principled opposition to changes in Canada's gun laws by purposely and publicly letting his gun licences expire. Mr. Montague was a well-respected gunsmith (local law enforcement used his services), and he purposely let his business licence expire as part of his protest as well. The result? Mr. Montague was sentenced to 18 months in jail (he served more than half a year), and now the government is trying to seize his life savings, including his family home. My view is certainly biased to an extent, because while I don't know Mr. Fontana, I do know and respect Mr. Montague, whom my organization The Canadian Constitution Foundation represents. However, I don't believe I'd be alone in finding a fundamental unfairness when comparing the two men's treatment. Mr. Fontana defrauded the government, while Mr. Montague hurt no one. Mr. Fontana enriched himself to the tune of $1,700, while Mr. Montague made nothing. According to the judge in his case, Mr. Fontana appears to have been motivated purely by a desire for personal gain, while Mr. Montague was motivated by a desire to alert Canadians to what he saw as an unconstitutional deprivation of freedom. If one of these two men deserved to be punished with jail time, surely it was not Mr. Montague. I realize that sentencing decisions usually involve a certain amount of judicial discretion (and they may soon involve more, if the government's recently introduced mandatory minimum sentences continue to raise judicial ire). There comes a point, though, when we must look at the outcomes in the justice system and ask ourselves whether they are in fact fair and constitutional. Can we really believe it's equitable to punish victimless crimes more harshly than those with victims? That someone who sells marijuana should potentially do more jail time (minimum six months) than someone who produces child pornography (minimum 90 days if a summary conviction)? That Bruce Montague should spend six months incarcerated while Joe Fontana spends none? Justice means doling out punishments that are commensurate with the severity of the bad acts committed and the harm done. We are a long way from achieving it. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom