Pubdate: Mon, 07 Jun 2010
Source: Vancouver Sun (CN BC)
Copyright: 2010 The Vancouver Sun
Contact: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/letters.html
Website: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/477
Author: Neil Boyd
Note: Neil Boyd is professor and associate director of the School of 
Criminology at Simon Fraser University.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing)

RESPONDING TO CRIME: FEAR IS DRIVING THE AGENDA

In 1910, Winston Churchill stated that one of the "unfailing tests" 
of a civilization lies in how it treats crime and criminals. In 1967, 
Pierre Trudeau told Canadians that the state has no place in the 
bedrooms of the nation.

Pronouncements from our current politicians are rather different in 
tone. Conservative Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has opposed 
same-sex unions, argued in favour of reducing the age of criminal 
responsibility to 10, and suggested that if sexual orientation was to 
become a protected category under Canada's hate crime legislation, 
"homosexual activists" might sue hotel chains to remove Bibles as a 
form of hate literature.

As part of a "getting tough on crime" agenda, Justice Minister Rob 
Nicholson wants to impose a minimum term of six months in prison on 
anyone who grows more than six marijuana plants, and to lengthen 
terms of imprisonment in a wide range of other contexts (even though 
rates of serious violent crime are much lower today than they were 30 
years ago).

More simply put, the federal government wants to put more people in 
jail. The approach that they advocate has no empirical support -- no 
examples from other jurisdictions to establish that crime rates will 
be affected in any beneficial manner. And yet the opposition, until 
very recently, has avoided criticism of this legislative package, 
explaining that they fear being tarred as "soft on crime." The 
unfortunate reality is that many in opposition, like the 
Conservatives, are allowing fear to drive their agenda. Worse than 
that, they appear to believe that Canadians can't be convinced of the 
unproductive and costly heart of the Conservative agenda. Worst of 
all, our culture and our country are being shortchanged by a barrage 
of name-calling and finger-pointing.

Consider two recent legislative initiatives and how they might have 
been more productively handled. First, mandatory minimum terms for 
marijuana growers. We know from polling that most Canadians don't 
think that adults who use the drug should be treated as criminals. 
Polling also tells us, however, that Canadians are concerned about 
large-scale grow operations that have violence or the threat of 
violence attached -- traps, handguns on the premises and the 
possibility that children may be victimized.

A thoughtful minister of justice might say something like the 
following: "We have no desire to target adult Canadians who use this 
drug in private, by themselves, or with other consenting adults. We 
do, however, have concerns about the violence attached to some parts 
of the marijuana trade, and we are, accordingly, suggesting that 
minimum terms of imprisonment be imposed in circumstances where 
marijuana cultivation is combined with violence or the threat of 
violence. We are not concerned about individuals who grow small 
amounts of marijuana for themselves, but we are concerned about a 
large-scale system of distribution, backed by violence or threats of violence."

Consider, secondly, the pardon granted to convicted sex offender 
Graham James. The prime minister's office described the pardon as 
"deeply troubling and gravely disturbing" and demanded an explanation 
from the Parole Board, a reaction designed to foment public fear and anger.

A more responsible Conservative prime minister, one more in keeping 
with the character of Winston Churchill, might have said something 
like the following: "I understand that many Canadians, particularly 
the victims of Mr. James, might be very upset by the granting of this 
pardon. Current law dictates that there are only a few categories of 
convicted criminals who are not eligible to apply for a pardon, most 
notably those convicted of murder, and those designated as dangerous 
offenders. I will ask the Parole Board to look into the specifics of 
the granting of a pardon to Mr. James, and we will similarly 
consider, as a government, whether there are other categories of 
criminal conviction that might best be excluded from the pardon 
process. The difficult task here is that of balancing individual case 
decisions with the more broad objectives of granting pardons to those 
convicted of criminal offences."

The objective in this instance is one of acknowledging a concern, 
setting out potential solutions, and moving forward without fear or 
anger as the motivating priorities. The tragedy is that Canada's 
current approach to crime and justice is not about logic, frank 
discussions or debates grounded in relevant information.

Neil Boyd is professor and associate director of the School of 
Criminology at Simon Fraser University.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom