CONSERVATIVES' EFFORTS TO COMBAT CRIME TAKE A GIANT STEP BACKWARD

The Conservatives' tough on crime agenda has been resonating with the
public, but Prime Minister Stephen Harper would be well-advised to
craft criminal justice policy that works on the streets rather than
at the polls.

On Thursday, the Conservatives tabled two bills before the House of
Commons as part of the justice pillar of their five-point plan. The
bills would see the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences for a
broad array of serious crimes, and an end to conditional sentences
for serious offences.

In discussing the measures, Harper had previously talked about
"rising levels of gun, gang and drug crime," and opined that
Conservative strategy "will go a long way to help beat back the
epidemic of guns, gangs and drugs that is plaguing our society
today." Unfortunately, the proposed measures will do nothing of the sort.

In fact, ramping up the United States-style war on drugs will only
exacerbate the drug problem because it will act as a boon to criminal
gangs who benefit from the criminalization of drugs. The only way to
put an end to this problem is to legalize drugs, but Harper wants to
do just the opposite.

Then there's the problem of mandatory sentences. Certainly, they
sound good to a public that believes judges are soft on crime and
that gun crime is out of control, even though it's been in steady
decline for years. But once again, mandatory sentences will only
exacerbate the problem.

Evidence from both Canada and the U.S. confirms that mandatory
minimums fail to deter crime. To be sure, there are reasons to keep
certain people in jail, but it's clear that minimum sentences have no
deterrent or preventive effect.

There is also abundant evidence that prosecutors are less likely to
obtain a conviction when mandatory sentences are on the table. Hence,
according to recent research, Canadian prosecutors withdrew fully
two-thirds of weapons charges where the defendants were facing
mandatory sentences.

And if defendants do go to trial, they're much less likely to plead
guilty, which places a greater burden on the courts and once again
decreases the likelihood of conviction.

The proposal to eliminate conditional sentences, which allow
offenders to serve time at home rather than in jail, is equally
wrongheaded. Conditional sentences were introduced in 1996, after
Parliament was informed that Canada imprisons more of its citizens
per capita than almost any other industrialized democracy. Given that
prison does nothing more than create better criminals, Parliament
recognized the need to offer alternatives to imprisonment.

Contrary to popular belief, offenders convicted of the most serious
offences don't receive conditional sentences. Only those whose
behaviour, in the opinion of a judge, merits less than two years in
jail are eligible.

Also contrary to popular belief, conditional sentences aren't
necessarily less onerous than prison terms. Offenders must follow
strict conditions, and unlike prison, where most offenders are only
incarcerated for one-third of their sentences, those on conditional
sentences must serve their full time, since they're not eligible for parole.

Further, conditional sentences allow offenders to continue working,
paying taxes and supporting their families, rather than acting as a
burden on the taxpayer, as those in jail do.

Conditional sentences, therefore, have many positive effects, just as
mandatory sentences have many negative ones. In the Conservatives'
zeal to eliminate the former and introduce the latter, they're
threatening to reverse the progress we've made -- progress that has
seen a reduction in serious crime -- and return Canada to the days
when its incarceration rate approached that of despotic kingdoms on
the other side of the world.