Pubdate: Fri, 20 Dec 2013
Source: Victoria Times-Colonist (CN BC)
Copyright: 2013 Times Colonist
Contact: http://www2.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/letters.html
Website: http://www.timescolonist.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/481
Author: Michael Mulligan
Note: Michael Mulligan is a Victoria lawyer.

MANDATORY SENTENCES ERODE RESPECT FOR THE LAW

Over the past several years, the federal government has amended the 
Criminal Code so as to create a dizzying array of mandatory minimum 
sentences for offences ranging from marijuana production to firearms 
possession. Predictably, these amendments have occasioned rank 
injustice as a result of the inevitable variability of human affairs.

The press releases that accompany these amendments conjure images of 
dangerous streets and gangs running wild, when the reality in Canada 
is a declining crime rate, due largely to the impact of demographics. 
There simply are not a lot of elderly bank robbers.

The reality distortion field that justifies mandatory jail sentences 
suddenly collapses when faced with human realities such as the 
octogenarian war veteran who hobbled into court in Victoria recently 
on a charge of possessing a Second World War-vintage handgun that was 
found by a care worker in his kitchen drawer. People are rightly 
aghast that we would have a justice system in which a judge would be 
required to send such a person to jail for months or years.

A recent editorial urged potential jurors to ignore judicial 
instructions and to simply acquit accused people so as to prevent 
unjust mandatory sentences from being imposed.

While we are fortunate to have a jury system that brings community 
values to bear on the justice system, it is exceedingly unfortunate 
that the criminal law has become so rigid and out of touch that 
citizens feel compelled to urge this sort of extra-legal action.

The restoration of judicial discretion to avoid the imposition of 
unjust sentences would not only promote the rule of law, but also 
ensure more consistently fair outcomes.

We ought not to have a justice system that is so inflexible that the 
only available outcomes are an acquittal or conviction followed by an 
excessively long jail sentence.

In a related series of amendments, the federal government now 
requires an extra fine, euphemistically called a victim fine 
surcharge, to be imposed in every case along with whatever other 
sentence is imposed. Judges are now required to impose these extra 
fines, even if doing so would result in undue hardship to an offender 
or their family.

A judge in Ontario recently decried the requirement to impose the 
extra $100 fines on mentally ill homeless people living under the 
local overpasses.

Unlike most other provinces, British Columbia has no program in place 
to allow impoverished offenders to perform community service to work 
off their fines. Instead, we convert unpaid fines into jail time at 
the rate of eight times the hourly minimum wage per day in jail.

Now, in British Columbia, if a poor person is convicted of stealing 
food to eat, they will receive an extra fine on top of their sentence 
and will be subject to going to jail if they do not pay.

Ill-conceived criminal justice legislation such as this is harmful, 
not only because of its immediate impact on impoverished offenders, 
but also because of its potential to erode respect for the rule of law.

Asking judges to impose uncollectible fines on the poor and to 
sentence elderly veterans to the penitentiary breeds disrespect for 
the rule of law. This impoverishes us all.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom