CANADIANS 'STUPID' TO LAP UP THREE-STRIKES LAW, SAYS LAWYER

Critics Call Bill Bad Legal Policy

OTTAWA -- The so-called three-strikes legislation tabled yesterday by
the Conservative government is being derided by detractors as
"morally abhorrent," and a violation of the centuries-old principle
of presumed innocence.

The bill's defenders note that it only kicks in after criminals have
already been found guilty of a third serious offence, and only
applies to the sentencing.

Doug Hoover, a Justice Department official who helped draft the bill,
said that the government expects a court challenge of its
dangerous-offender legislation -- and expects to win.

Once convicted of a third crime punishable by two years in prison,
someone at a dangerous-offender hearing would have to prove that they
do not constitute a threat to society.

Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby calls the bill partisan political
posturing -- and bad legal policy.

"The Tories get votes from bashing criminals and Canadians simply
seem stupid enough to bite on this again, and again, and again," Ruby said.

"It doesn't matter whether it's effective, it doesn't matter if it's
good policy. The electorate loves it."

A University of Toronto law professor said taxpayers would be stuck
paying for additional prison spaces, while the bill wouldn't reduce
crime rates.

"There have been many studies that show that the severity of
punishment does not really affect the deterrence of crime. The
possibility of detection does," said Peter Rosenthal.

"Criminals don't sit around thinking, 'They've increased it now to
four years [in jail] -- I'd better not rob that store. But for two
years I'd do it.' Nobody thinks like that."