Pubdate: Sat, 06 May 2006 Source: Peterborough Examiner, The (CN ON) Copyright: 2006 Osprey Media Group Inc. Contact: http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2616 Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing) TOUGHER SENTENCES: PUBLIC IS READY Now that tougher sentencing rules for serious crimes have been introduced as legislation, rather than just promised during an election campaign, the whole notion is getting a more critical look. One of the Conservative government's two new bills would ban serve-at-home sentences for a variety of violent crimes, major drug offences and crimes carrying a penalty of 10 years or more. The other sets mandatory minimum sentences of one to 10 years for specific gun-related, or gang-related, crimes. Critics make two arguments against the tough-on-crime package. A) Violent crime has been decreasing in Canada for a decade and the new laws are unnecessary. B) Longer sentences don't deter criminals or reduce crime rates, but do add to prison populations, driving up costs. If both those claims were entirely true they would carry real weight in the debate. However, they still wouldn't offset all the reasons why Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government proposed this anti-crime initiative. Are they true? In part, but simple statements like "violent crime is falling" don't reflect the complexity of the situation. Statistics Canada figures show that nation-wide, the violent crime rate dropped five per cent from 1998 to 2004. But that is a measure of all violent crime. Gun-related crime has risen, particularly in the past five years. Toronto last year had a record 52 shooting deaths, well above its previous high of 33 in 2001, even though the city's overall murder rate was stable. What is happening is that more young men are carrying guns and shooting people, often in public places. That disturbing trend was what prompted both the Conservatives and Liberals and even, to a lesser degree, the NDP to build a law-and-order element into their recent campaign platforms. Do mandatory minimum sentences work? Critics who say "no" tend to point to experience in the United States, where the idea became popular in the 1970s. Many U.S. states have since backed off somewhat as prison populations swelled and it became clear that many sentences were too harsh. But that argument applies mainly to "war on drugs" legislation dating back to the Ronald Reagan years. Most mandatory sentencing laws were aimed at drug offenders. In New York state, anyone caught with four ounces of cocaine was sentenced to 15 years to life. Yet drugs continued to be sold, and many non-violent, first-time offenders ended up with life sentences. That minimum range was recently rolled back to eight to 20 years. The current Tory bills deal only with violent crime (although tougher drug laws are said to be coming). And there is evidence that harsher sentences work on gun-related crime. In 1998, the state of Florida adopted minimum sentences of 10 years for any crime committed while carrying a gun, 20 years if a shot was fired, and 25 years to life if someone was injured or killed. Florida Department of Corrections figures show violent crime dropped 30 per cent over the next six years. During that same period in Canada, violent crime was down five per cent. Longer sentences for violent criminals and those who carry guns aren't the only answer. Experience in high-crime areas of U.S. cities shows that. Boston had success when clergy worked directly with black youths in poor neighbourhoods. Chicago cut its murder rate by 26 per cent in three years, in part by counselling parolees. Similar initiatives are needed here, and in some cases are already underway. But whether longer sentences reduce crime rates is not the only issue. Many criminals who use guns are not going to go straight. If they are taken off the streets for 10 years instead of four (the current longest mandatory minimum for a crime less than murder), the public will be safe from them for those extra six years. There is strong public awareness of that reality, and support for its application. If it costs more to keep violent offenders in jail longer, people are willing to pay that cost. Harper's minimum sentence proposals are milder than what was in the Conservative election platform, and much more reasonable than the "drug war" approach in the U.S.. They should be applied.The details may change, but the principle should apply. - --- MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman