TORY JUSTICE REFORMS TOO HARSH, TOO HASTY

"Serious crime will mean serious time" is a catchy and rhyming slogan
the federal Conservatives are using repeatedly to explain their new
bills to toughen criminal sentencing.

The line speaks to many citizens' belief that crime should not pay,
and that judges routinely hand out sentences that are too lenient.

Somebody committing robbery with a gun should wind up in the slammer
for at least five years, no matter what, right?

But beyond the emotional realm of voter-driven justice, Justice
Minister Vic Toews' proposed mandatory minimum sentences and limits on
conditional sentences are overly stiff policies that will stifle
judges, be hugely expensive, have negligible impact on crime and come
at a time when crime is falling anyway.

The 18 gun crimes that will now draw automatic prison terms ranging
from one to 10 years come with a price: between $220 million and $245
million over five years, including new buildings, Public Safety
Minister Stockwell Day admitted Thursday.

Housing a male prisoner costs more than $80,000 a year.

Day anticipates 300 to 400 new prisoners annually because of these
gun-crime sentences.

If the Tories follow through on their election promise to add more
mandatory minimums for drug trafficking and sexual offences -- and if
Stephen Harper has shown anything as prime minister, he likes
following through on election promises -- the prison costs will climb
even more dramatically.

And will all this keep Canadian streets safer and deter
crime?

Reams of crime research say chances are slim.

One 2002 study by Day's public safety ministry found that harsher
sentences did not stop repeat offenders; rather, in that year criminal
acts became three per cent more likely.

In 1997, a review prepared for the U.S. Department of Justice found
results for mandatory minimums were mixed, at best: a Massachussets
gun law deterred crime in the short term; in Michigan and Florida no
prevention was detected, and in large cities like Detroit and Miami
gun-use sentencing appeared to deter murders, but not other violent
crimes.

Meanwhile, the legislated minimum sentences lead to more trials --
another taxpayer expense -- as an accused person will more likely wish
to fight rather than plead guilty for an automatically stiffer punishment.

The intended severity of mandatory minimums is further dampened by the
tendency of prosecutors or police to lean toward lesser charges if
they deem a charge's penalty too harsh.

Toews' proposals strip judges of their ability to judge by setting
such tough limits, like three years minimum in jail for robbery where
a firearm is stolen.

Not every crime or criminal is equal; as a result, democratic
societies confer on their jurists the responsibility to study and
judge each situation on its facts and circumstances.

Ordinary citizens rarely have the same command of those facts and
circumstances; they learn about the crime and seethe at the penalty
without the context a judge or jury carefully considered. Mandatory
minimums reduce the importance of careful consideration, something
most citizens would want if they every found themselves in trouble
with the law.

The Tories would also bar giving conditional sentences, or house
arrests for serious crimes, meaning that they could no longer apply to
such groups as negligent drivers who kill others.

Judges' discretion to make exceptions in special circumstances should
still be allowed; a change to sentencing guidelines would be a less
draconian solution than amending the Criminal Code.

Toews' "serious crime" quip has appeal, but not a lot of reason behind
it.