Pubdate: Wed, 11 Jan 2006
Source: Vancouver Sun (CN BC)
Copyright: 2006 The Vancouver Sun
Contact:  http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/477
Author: Lorne Gunter
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing)
Note: Lorne Gunter is a National Post columnist.

THE LIBERAL THEOLOGY ON MANDATORY SENTENCES

Last week, federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler contradicted his 
leader, Paul Martin, on an important part of the Liberal anti-crime 
platform -- mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes.

Cotler told the Toronto Star he would not be "pressured" into 
introducing mandatory sentences. When he was a law professor, he 
explained, he once thought minimum sentences should work to deter 
crime. But after studying the literature, he became convinced they 
"are neither a deterrent nor are they effective."

A day later, Cotler was insisting to the National Post that he and 
his PM were on the same page -- that while minimum sentences might 
have no practical effect, they send an important message of 
"denunciation" to those who might murder, rape or mug.

Ah, yes, that old liberal belief in symbolism over substance: Simply 
send the right message and human behaviour will be altered. Wag our 
collective finger at drug dealers and murderers and they will stop.

Shame on you, bad men. Shame, shame, shame.

Never mind that Cotler believes the empirical evidence proves the 
uselessness of minimum sentences, he would implement them anyway 
because the social message behind them might disgrace hardened 
criminals into not committing their crimes. (And because promising to 
implement them might re-elect his party.)

Frankly, I doubt the academic studies on mandatory sentences are as 
conclusive as Cotler asserts.

In June, a bibliographic analysis conducted by the Library of 
Parliament for Saskatchewan MP Garry Breitkreuz concluded, "There is 
little research dealing with the effectiveness of mandatory minimum 
sentences in Canada."

Neither Cotler's own department nor Statistics Canada could point to 
any proof that the sentences worked or didn't work. Indeed, in an 
exhaustive study conducted for Justice in 2002, the authors argue for 
more research "which examines the patterns of use of mandatory 
minimum penalties, their effects on sentence length, incarceration 
rates, crime rates, levels of recidivism ... levels of public 
awareness of existing penalties and cost/benefit analyses."

When Cotler and the criminologists and prisoners' rights advocates 
who oppose minimum sentences tell the public the research shows they 
don't work, there is probably a lot of circular reassurance going on. 
Liberal politicians don't want them, so they point to academics and 
advocates who say they don't work. Advocates say the academics have 
shown them to be ineffective and crow that few enlightened 
politicians will implement them, while academics cite the advocates 
who say there is no proof of their effectiveness and point to 
political opposition.

I, too, doubt that minimum sentences will do much to reduce gun 
crime, but not for the reasons cited by Cotler and his experts. In 
several jurisdictions where hard-nosed politicians have passed them, 
implementation has been thwarted by liberal judges and prosecutors 
who have found clever ways around them.

The key is not sentencing gun criminals to long periods in jail. 
Anyone can do that, including Liberal justice ministers who don't 
believe doing so will be effective. The key is keeping gun criminals 
in jail longer.

There are already lots of laws against gun use during crimes, such as 
five years for pointing a gun during a crime, and up to 14 years for 
shooting it. The problem is, these added charges are often 
plea-bargained away by Crown prosecutors eager to get guilty pleas to 
the underlying charge such as murder or robbery. Worse yet, a decade 
ago, Ottawa and the provinces made a conscious decision to reduce 
dramatically the number of criminals who go to jail in Canada. Now, 
only about one in five convicted criminals will actually spend any 
time in prison, and most of those will spend less than six months.

Two-thirds of the adults accused of murder in Canada in 2004 already 
had criminal records. Seventy per cent of those had committed a 
violent crime before. And eight per cent had previous murder convictions.

Had they still been in jail for their earlier crimes, there is no way 
they could have committed new ones.

Mandatory minimum sentences are nothing more than a political 
sideshow if there is no truth in sentencing. So long as criminals 
know a long sentence means only a few months of jail time, if that, 
all the get-tough sentences in the world will do nothing to cut down 
on gunplay in the streets.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman