Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
(snip)
A. The establishment of mandatory minimum sentences for more than the most heinous of criminal code offenses is a wrong-headed policy, for many reasons--one of which you've touched on. First because it removes discretion from our judicial branch, and puts it into the hands of politicians who manipulate it for votes. Secondly, because it results in overcrowding of prisons, which is in this case (as you concede) a symptom of bad policy, not a of rising crime.
(snip)
|
We probably aren't that far apart on our thoughts on judicial discretion as I concede the need for judicial flexibility, especially with first-time offenders and non-violent crimes. I do however sympathize with the perception that our sentencing is a little light in Canada, especially in the case of repeat, sexual and violent offenders. To make a few specific examples:
- I don't agree with the idea of concurrent sentencing and specifically I think that firearms sentences should be served in addition to whatever other crimes are committed (i.e. if you break into a house while in possession of an illegal handgun, you should serve the handgun sentence once you're done with the B&E sentence).
- I believe that multiple murder and assault sentences should be served consecutively not concurrently as victims should not face parole hearings as early as they do and I think that society is best served by keeping these offenders locked away for ever. Rehabilitation is a noble idea and is appropriate for many offences but not for these.
- I also agree with removing the extra sentence reductions for time served in remand before trial is complete.
I have very little sympathy for repeat, violent and sexual offenders and if it costs more to keep those folks in jail longer, I'm fine with that. Frankly, I would prefer it if judges opted to implement these kinds of changes themselves but that has not been the trend over the last 30 years and thus it's Parliament's job to give them direction in this area.
My reason for engaging you in this debate was to make the point that the government's prison-building isn't an accident and isn't the result of some kind of error in arithmetic, as is implied by the falling crime rate argument. In fact, there is an actual error in arithmetic if one assumes that falling crime rates will always mean falling prison populations because we are in a regime of 1-2% population growth. I did the math comparing population growth to crime rate reduction and the resulting change in total number of crimes committed is a modest reduction, not the stark drop implied by the drop in crime rates since 1991. Once you add in longer sentences to the effects of population growth, it's clear that there will be more prisoners.
The observed growth in prison populations is a predicted consequence of the tough-on-crime platform the current government was elected on. Whether it's a lowest common denominator platform or good or bad policy is debatable but that wasn't the point you originally made and isn't the point currently being made by the opposition.