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