Pubdate: Mon, 30 May 2011 Source: Vancouver Sun (CN BC) Copyright: 2011 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: Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun HARPER GOVERNMENT'S ANTI-CRIME PACKAGE UNNECESSARY Crime Rates Have Long Been in Decline, Tougher Punishments Don't Deter Offenders, and U.S. Proves Imprisoning Social Problems Too Expensive Prime Minister Stephen Harper is about to embark on an aggressive legislative agenda that includes justice initiatives he should reconsider. The mandatory sentences and the supposedly tough-on-crime measures pioneered in America that his party likes don't actually work. So why embrace them? He should take note that the conservative U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged last week that it's simply too expensive to imprison social problems. More nuance is required. The American Supremes ran up the equivalent of a lawand-order white flag, ruling it was okay for California to free an estimated 37,000 criminals because the state with a $10-billion budget deficit cannot afford to keep them housed and healthy. In spite of the cost, Justice Antonin Scalia argued in dissent that the continued incarceration was necessary for most of the people affected by the ruling. "Most of [those released] will not be prisoners with medical conditions or severe mental illness; and many will undoubtedly be fine physical specimens who have developed intimidating muscles pumping iron in the prison gym." He might be right: California's independent inspector general found that about 1,500 offenders were improperly released recently as a result of the over-crowding issue, including 450 who "carry a high risk for violence." Yes, but it's important to keep in mind also that most of the inmates didn't need to be behind bars. Setting aside Justice Scalia's not-unreasonable paranoia, most were imprisoned under a sentencing regime that cost taxpayers too much and didn't make them any safer. Crime rates have been declining for a long time and we are less victimized irrespective of what governments have done in America or Canada. We don't need the Tories' anti-crime package. The sparethe-rod-spoil-the-child conservative legal ideology doesn't correlate with lower crime rates or safer neighbourhoods. Across the continent, it's getting safer (unless you're in a Mexican drug zone). And Harper should also take note: It isn't just California whose taxpayers can't bear the cost of the prison system required to support mandatory sentences; several states are similarly buckling. We need not repeat those mistakes. That doesn't mean we don't have to be tough on those who deserve it. It's important we jail the violent. No question. And others who require incarceration should receive it. But those engaged in non-violent crimes, especially driven by a drug addiction, need to be treated as individuals with a problematic health issue. Prison should be a last resort. And judges need discretion to parse the situation, any situation, and to levy the appropriate punishment. Mandatory sentences are a way of driving up prison populations, not a sophisticated response to social issues. But therein lies the problem. The Conservatives' rhetoric needs more subtlety; witness their response to Insite, the supervised injection clinic on Vancouver's east side. Why does Ottawa maintain its resistance to this medical experiment? Similarly, the Tories have proposed legislation that treats identically a guerrilla gardener and a Hells Angels puppet. One might deserve six months in jail, but does the overly enthusiastic kid with a green thumb down the block need that behind-the-bars experience? The perception is the prime minister and his party are judicial Neanderthals blinded by a single idea -retribution. Harper should fix that. He has long complained Canada's legal regime is dominated by a constellation of concerns around rehabilitation and the reclamation of the offender; the victim given short shrift, and that it is time to redress the situation. Many of us would not disagree. But let's not aid victims at the expense of those who made a mistake. Let's not turn the legal system into a debate over folk aphorisms. Justice isn't either/or. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard R Smith Jr.