Pubdate: Sat, 20 Oct 2007
Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)
Copyright: 2007 The Ottawa Citizen
Contact: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/letters.html
Website: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/326
Author: Dan Gardner, The Ottawa Citizen

HARPER GETS TOUGH ON THE LIBERALS

It's difficult to imagine now, but there was a time when politicians 
considered it unseemly to grandstand on crime. Policy oversight in 
the calm setting of a legislative committee was one thing, but no 
responsible leader would whip up fear, or leap at tragedy, simply to 
score a few points in the polls.

That understanding still holds in some European countries but in 
Canada it's gone and forgotten. Following the American lead -- 
beginning with the 1964 presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater -- 
Canadian politicians gradually embraced the tactics of fear and 
loathing. What would have been considered despicable a generation ago 
- -- naming laws after dead children, using victims as campaign props 
- -- has become standard operating procedure.

Which brings us to the government's crime omnibus bill, the so-called 
Tackling Violent Crime Act. During the last federal election 
campaign, the Conservatives laid out a series of fairly precise crime 
reforms they said they would enact if elected. This was billed as one 
of their "five priorities," and they were indeed elected, so there's 
no question they have a democratic mandate to attempt (it is only a 
minority, after all) to pass this legislation.

It also makes sense that the reforms should proceed in an omnibus 
bill. They're not terribly complicated. They all deal with the same 
subject and they all follow a similar line -- making existing laws 
stricter or more punitive.

But when the Conservatives took office, they decided against an 
omnibus bill. Instead, they introduced their changes in bits and 
pieces and rather than pushing them hard, they nudged them along at a 
leisurely pace.

But proceed they did. Some parts of the new omnibus bill were 
actually close to finishing their travels through the snake's belly 
when the government yanked them back, bundled them into this new bill 
and shoved the package back into the snake's mouth.

It was a naked demonstration that for the Conservatives, this is far 
less about policy than it is about politics.

First came a throne speech in which the Conservatives all but dared 
the hapless Liberals to vote against the government and trigger an 
election. The Liberals put their hands in their pockets and stared at 
their feet. This was immediately followed by the crime bill, which 
the Conservatives said could not be amended and which would be 
treated as a confidence matter that could, once again, trigger an 
election. This is what schoolkids everywhere know as a "double-dare." 
Now we see why the Tories were so casual in advancing their crime 
bills. And we also see just how sincere they are about the value of 
this legislation.

They have said for years that crime is a growing menace and the 
streets are being overrun by -- as Mr. Harper likes to say -- "guns, 
gangs and drugs." This is nonsense, but they claim to believe it. The 
solution, they say, are these urgent reforms. And yet, the 
Conservatives dithered. And hedged. And played political games. And 
generally did not behave as one would expect of politicians who 
genuinely believe innocent lives are at stake.

The Liberals are in a quandary. If they vote against the bill, they 
will be blamed for launching an election -- even though they 
desperately want to avoid one -- and that election will likely 
feature crime as one of its top issues. Nothing could be better for the Tories.

Public opinion surveys routinely show that when people are given 
substantial information and asked to really think about crime policy, 
majorities oppose mandatory minimum sentences and the rest of the 
tough-on-crime package. But when people are only asked for a quick 
and emotional response --"should violent criminals be sent to prison 
longer?" -- opinion swings hard the other way. As every strategist 
knows, campaigns are all about quick and emotional responses -- so an 
election in which crime features prominently will always favour the 
guy talking tough.

And what if the Liberals (and NDP) vote for the bill, as it now seems 
they will? They will have formally endorsed the view that longer 
sentences are an effective way to reduce crime -- even though a 
mountain of criminological research says otherwise. They will also 
have given the thumbs-up to mandatory minimum sentencing -- despite 
jurists' uniform opposition to such sentences because of their 
well-documented tendency to produce injustices.

Then the Tories will have the Liberals at their mercy. Every time a 
high-profile crime occurs, the Conservatives will be able to respond 
with a crowd-pleasing promise to pass a new mandatory minimum 
sentence, or to make the existing minimum tougher -- and the Liberals 
will have no grounds on which to object. Eventually, triangulating 
Liberals will decide the only way to stop being thumped on crime is 
to make their own get-tough proposals.

The result will be a general rise in sentence severity. Prison 
populations will swell. Correctional budgets will soar. And it will 
make little difference to public safety.

This is not speculation. It is the history of American justice over 
the last 25 years.

To understand what a mistake it would be to travel down this road, 
MPs should read the chapter comparing Canadian and American crime 
trends in Franklin Zimring's The Great American Crime Decline.

Of course, that assumes there are still some politicians who think 
crime policy is more important than crime politics, and that is an 
increasingly dubious proposition.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom