Pubdate: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 Source: Vancouver Sun (CN BC) http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=05434bf3-5cce-4891-9505-664406e38b27 Copyright: 2006 The Vancouver Sun Contact: http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/477 Author: Ian Mulgrew Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?137 (Needle Exchange) HARPER'S JOHN WAYNE STANCE DATED Crime Rhetoric Indicates Prime Minister Has Watched Too Many Television Cop Shows In a tough-on-crime address to the country's police chiefs and in his first throne speech, Prime Minister Stephen Harper promises mandatory sentences and other laws to stiffen criminal punishment. Harper unleashed his one-two, law-and-order punch Monday and Tuesday, unveiling it first to police executives and then to Parliament. "Unfortunately, our safe streets and healthy communities are increasingly under threat of gun, gang and drug violence" Gov.-Gen. Michaelle Jean said, reading from the government-authored speech. "This government will tackle crime." Harper's minority administration plans to reduce crime via longer prison terms for violent and repeat offenders (especially if they use guns), more cops and more opportunities for youth. There was little question he would receive a receptive audience among the Canadian Professional Police Association. They gave him prolonged ovations, according to the media reports, when he promised to crack down on parole, to do away with mandatory supervision -- which allows most prisoners to get out of jail after serving two-thirds of their sentence and to toss the intended Liberal reforms of the anti-marijuana law. "We are going to hold criminals to account," Harper said. "This government will send a strong message to criminals: If you do a serious crime, you're going to start doing serious time." Tuesday's speech underscored the message. I'm interested in seeing how this John Wayne stance plays with the public. And I'm especially interested in the research his government will bring forward to justify these new policies. I think Harper has watched too many television cop shows. The Conservative leader's rhetoric in my opinion is out of step with the kind of policies that have been shown to work and the trends of the last decade. Some of the ideas he seems to like, too, appear to have failed. The New York Times noted in an editorial earlier this year, for instance, that in the U.S., mandatory sentences for drug offences produced some nasty results. "More harm than good," in fact, the well-respected newspaper concluded. Prison populations skyrocketed, the costs to government were crushing and the drug problem with its attendant crime raged on and on. I firmly believe as well that by removing a judge's discretion, you make the justice system a much less just place. In many cases involving first-time offenders, there are mitigating circumstances that should be taken into account -- some people really do deserve a second chance; some people can be redeemed. Similarly, to imprison non-violent addicts and marijuana users seems to me to be a complete waste of public resources. Yes, some who are recidivist menaces to the health of the community should be jailed, but tax money is better spent providing most with treatment and social support. For the past several years, Vancouver and some other big Canadian cities have pioneered novel approaches to drug abuse and crime -- new kinds of courts, more street-level services such as needle exchanges, unique ideas such as giving desperate alcoholics free liquor. Having travelled in Europe where they have embraced similar ideas, I believe it is only with a mixed basket of approaches that street disorder, drug abuse and crime rates are truly addressed. Harper should abandon the sloganeering and have a meaningful discussion with Canadians about crime, drug addiction and the perception that judges are soft on the bad guys. I think most Canadians don't fully understand what is happening in the legal system because they see only the tip of the iceberg. Part of the problem is that our attention is driven by a focus on violent and spectacular crime, which accounts for only a small proportion of offences. But also it's partly because we identify and sympathize with the victim -- that's why the media frame most crime stories from the perspective of the person who is attacked, robbed, hurt or killed. The victim, when he or she can, their family and friends usually, not always, but usually complain the offender in most cases has not been punished enough. Most want the sentence to deliver some kind of emotional closure and to make the offender feel as badly as his behaviour made them feel. It rarely does -- feelings of violation and the brush of violence in a life are often devastating and take a long time to heal. Sometimes they don't. Often, I think most of the time, judges have correctly weighed and balanced several interests to come to the appropriate sentence. If the public were more aware of that process, popular opinion might change. Perhaps. Then again, maybe it just feels too good wagging a finger and delivering a lecture.