TORIES GET TOUGH ON NON-VIOLENT OFFENDERS

Harsh Mandatory Sentences Not Limited To Dangerous Criminals

The Conservatives' plan to reform the use of conditional sentences --
legislation the government says is aimed at ensuring serious
offenders do serious time -- would also put those convicted of crimes
such as mail theft and bestiality behind bars.

The bill, introduced yesterday, combined with legislation that would
impose mandatory minimum sentences of between three and 10 years for
various gun-related crimes, represents the first step in Prime
Minister Stephen Harper's plan to get tough on crime.

"We are changing the focus of the justice system so that serious
crime will mean serious time," Justice Minister Vic Toews told a news
conference.

"I am confident that the actions we are taking today will result in
reforms that will mean everyone can feel less threatened by violent
crime," he added later.

But the conditional sentence bill covers a wide range of offences,
several of which involve no violence. That's because the bill bans
using conditional sentences for any crime punishable by a maximum
sentence of 10 years or more in prison.

That category, which covers 97 offences in total, includes crimes
such as unauthorized possession of a firearm, hijacking, making or
placing explosives, manslaughter, attempted murder and sexual assault
with a weapon.

But it also includes offences such as unauthorized use of a computer,
cattle theft, mail theft, bestiality and a wide range of drug
offences. Under the Conservative legislation, those convicted of
these crimes would not have the option of serving a conditional sentence.

A conditional sentence is a sentence of imprisonment of less than two
years that can be served in the community if several criteria are
met, one of which demands the judge must be convinced public safety
will not be threatened by allowing the offender to serve a sentence
in the community.

"You can't for a minute think that all offences that have 10 years or
more for a sentence are offences that in every situation are serious
offences," said David Paciocco, a criminal law professor at the
University of Ottawa.

Banning conditional sentences for all those offences, he said, would
not only put many people in jail who don't need to be there, but it
would likely result in lawyers and judges finding ways to avoid the
ban. Judges might demand a higher level of evidence for a conviction,
he said, while prosecutors might lay lesser charges just so
conditional sentences are still an option.

"I agree with the sentiment behind the bill," Mr. Paciocco said.
"You've got to make sure that there is public confidence in the
administration of justice, but I don't know that the way to go about
doing that is to throw blankets and simple solutions at complex problems."

Marjean Fichtenberg, whose 25-year-old son was murdered by a
previously violent offender who was on parole, supported eliminating
conditional sentences for violent crimes. But she disagreed with
throwing out those sentences for every offence that would be covered
under the Conservative bill.

"For some of the non-violent offences, I don't think there's any
purpose to having someone serve a long time in jail," said Ms.
Fichtenberg, a member of the Canadian Association of Victim
Advocates, from her home in Grand Forks, B.C.

Government officials said the bill would mean about 5,500 people
annually would no longer be able to serve their time at home and be
monitored through an electronic tracking device.

Mr. Toews' office declined comment yesterday evening.

Neil Boyd, a professor of criminology at Simon Fraser University in
B.C., said judges often use conditional sentences when the
circumstances show the crime was not as serious as the charge.

Those sentences may have been wrongly applied in some cases, he said,
but that doesn't mean they should no longer be available.

"You don't premise policy that covers thousands on the basis of what
are arguably a few mistakes in the imposition of conditional
sentences," he said.

Mr. Paciocco said the government had other options to curb
conditional sentences for serious and violent crimes. It could have
legislated aggravating factors -- such as extreme violence or breach
of trust -- that a judge must take into account when deciding on a sentence.

Or, he added, the prosecution can simply appeal a sentence with which
it disagrees, something that's already practised routinely.