Depressingly, it looks like this new crime legislation will become law in Canada – bringing with it the certainty of substantial new prison costs and little in the way of likely benefits.
One aspect that seems especially objectionable is mandatory minimum sentences. I think it makes a lot of sense for a judge who knows the law and the circumstances of a case to decide what punishment is fitting. Binding the hands of a judge by forbidding sentences of less than a set amount seems like a policy can that only produce injustice. Surely, there are cases where a literal interpretation of the law would apply to someone, but where it would be unjust to punish the guilty party severely. Letting judges keep their discretion is an appropriate reflection of the complexity of the world. I also question whether the supposed problem of excessively lenient sentencing – the basis for establishing minimums – actually exists.
I also think it is counterproductive and unjust to tighten the laws on illegal drugs. Most of the harm done by drugs arises precisely because they are illegal. It would be far better to legalize, regulate, and provide treatment. That is especially true of exceptionally benign drugs like marijuana – which is probably less damaging to the people who use it than most prescription antidepressants. Besides, it is up to properly informed individuals to decide what they want to put into their bodies – not a moralizing state that has bought into the morally bankrupt and ineffective ‘War on Drugs’ mentality.
Finally, I strongly object to the lack of personal security for inmates in prison. Even criminals deserve to have their human rights protected by the state.
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
VANCOUVER — Four former Vancouver mayors have endorsed a coalition calling for an end to pot prohibition in Canada that they blame for rampant gang violence.
Larry Campbell, Mike Harcourt, Sam Sullivan and Philip Owen all signed an open letter to politicians in B.C. Wednesday claiming a change in the law will reduce gang violence.
The former mayors support the position of the Stop the Violence BC coalition, which recently released a survey showing most B.C. residents favour an end to the current marijuana laws.
This bill might be a good candidate for rejection by the Senate.
The Senate is meant to provide a ‘sober second thought’, and this bill seems especially problematic.
Note that drug metaphor right in the motto of the Canadian Senate. It implies that the government can get drunk and make poorly considered choices.
Some of the reasons why the mandatory minimums does not makes sense:
1. it is very expensive to imprison people $110,000 in federal penitentiaries
2. prisons do not generally rehabilitate, imprisonment leads to more crime
3. the onset of violent crime is actually decreasing
4. we have good experienced judges
5. more imprisonment (including 3 strike laws) in the US has not worked
Conservative crime bill heads to Commons for final showdown
Postmedia News
Sunday, Nov. 27, 2011
By Tobi Cohen
OTTAWA — After failing to get a single amendment to the controversial omnibus crime bill approved during committee, the opposition is poised to try again this week when the bill returns to the House of Commons.
While the Conservatives may well invoke closure and limit debate as they have multiple times before, New Democrats, Liberals and Green Party leader Elizabeth May, have nonetheless given notice on 73 new amendments and debate is scheduled to take place Tuesday and Wednesday in the report stage of deliberation on the bill.
The Conservatives are determined to push the Safe Streets and Communities Act through the Commons before Christmas and the bill is expected to become law within the first 100 sitting days of the 41st Parliament — March 16, 2012, according to the Commons calendar.
“At the report stage, we can’t create new law but we can eliminate aspects of the law we find distasteful,” NDP justice critic Jack Harris said, noting the amendments largely deal with the “principles” behind the bill.
“Our proposals at the report stage are generally to delete the negative aspects of the act.”
Tories’ omnibus crime bill passes in the House of Commons
Postmedia News Dec 5, 2011 – 8:49 PM ET
By Tobi Cohen
OTTAWA — The opposition has called it misguided, at least two provinces have vowed not to pay for it and the Canadian Bar Association has done its darndest to get the Conservatives to listen to reason.
Still, the controversial omnibus crime bill cleared the Commons Monday evening, just 45 sitting days after it was first tabled.
The Safe Streets and Communities Act — a hodgepodge of nine justice bills, most of which were defeated in previous Parliaments when the Conservatives were in minority status — easily passed thanks to the government’s new majority in a vote of 157 to 127.
This omnibus bill is an example of a majority in the House of Commons can force through legislation that could not be passed during a Conservative minority government.
I am bothered by the label “Safe Streets and Communities Act” . We all want safe streets and communities. It suggests that our streets or communities are not safe. We are probably in one of the safest countries in the world. We do not need such wholesale changes.
Whatever one’s views of the senate and its reform, that institution has often played an important role in bringing a reflective, evidence-based perspective to bear on proposed laws. Because the members do not face reelection, they are in a good position to avoid the worst excesses of junk politics where pandering trumps the long-term interests of Canadians.
We know that there is a remarkable consensus among the experts here in Canada and more broadly that aspects of the proposed legislation will make things worse and will certainly divert money better spent on prevention, education, rehabilitation where possible, restoration and help to victims, and the safe reintegration of offenders into the community.
Of course, we can all do the math. A Conservative majority in the Senate tells us that the bill will pass, yet again, with the same anticlimax we saw earlier this week. But the Senate does have a job to do and there is definitely work to be done. Let’s hear the evidence, the experts, the risks, the costs.
It seems absurd to commit to sending so many more people to prison, at a time when crime is low and we are cutting government spending overall.
There are much better ways we could spend the money, like on education or assistance to the impoverished.
Increased enforcement not curtailing marijuana use, report finds
Increased funding for anti-cannabis law enforcement does not meaningfully reduce the drug’s potency, price or availability and creates a lucrative opportunity for organized crime, according to a report by a group of marijuana policy reform advocates.
The report, entitled How not to protect community health and safety: What the government’s own data say about the effects of cannabis production was released on Thursday, and argues that marijuana should be regulated, taxed and sold in a restricted capacity. It was authored by Stop the Violence, a coalition of law enforcement and public health officials, politicians and academics that includes former Vancouver mayors Larry Campbell, Philip Owen and Sam Sullivan and Dr. Julio Montaner, director of the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, among others.
{ 1 trackback }