HARPER'S JOHN WAYNE STANCE DATED

Crime Rhetoric Indicates Prime Minister Has Watched Too Many
Television Cop Shows

In a tough-on-crime address to the country's police chiefs and in his
first throne speech, Prime Minister Stephen Harper promises mandatory
sentences and other laws to stiffen criminal punishment.

Harper unleashed his one-two, law-and-order punch Monday and Tuesday,
unveiling it first to police executives and then to Parliament.

"Unfortunately, our safe streets and healthy communities are
increasingly under threat of gun, gang and drug violence" Gov.-Gen.
Michaelle Jean said, reading from the government-authored speech.
"This government will tackle crime."

Harper's minority administration plans to reduce crime via longer
prison terms for violent and repeat offenders (especially if they use
guns), more cops and more opportunities for youth.

There was little question he would receive a receptive audience among
the Canadian Professional Police Association.

They gave him prolonged ovations, according to the media reports,
when he promised to crack down on parole, to do away with mandatory
supervision -- which allows most prisoners to get out of jail after
serving two-thirds of their sentence and to toss the intended Liberal
reforms of the anti-marijuana law.

"We are going to hold criminals to account," Harper said.

"This government will send a strong message to criminals: If you do a
serious crime, you're going to start doing serious time."

Tuesday's speech underscored the message.

I'm interested in seeing how this John Wayne stance plays with the public.

And I'm especially interested in the research his government will
bring forward to justify these new policies.

I think Harper has watched too many television cop shows.

The Conservative leader's rhetoric in my opinion is out of step with
the kind of policies that have been shown to work and the trends of
the last decade.

Some of the ideas he seems to like, too, appear to have failed.

The New York Times noted in an editorial earlier this year, for
instance, that in the U.S., mandatory sentences for drug offences
produced some nasty results.

"More harm than good," in fact, the well-respected newspaper concluded.

Prison populations skyrocketed, the costs to government were crushing
and the drug problem with its attendant crime raged on and on.

I firmly believe as well that by removing a judge's discretion, you
make the justice system a much less just place.

In many cases involving first-time offenders, there are mitigating
circumstances that should be taken into account -- some people really
do deserve a second chance; some people can be redeemed.

Similarly, to imprison non-violent addicts and marijuana users seems
to me to be a complete waste of public resources.

Yes, some who are recidivist menaces to the health of the community
should be jailed, but tax money is better spent providing most with
treatment and social support.

For the past several years, Vancouver and some other big Canadian
cities have pioneered novel approaches to drug abuse and crime -- new
kinds of courts, more street-level services such as needle exchanges,
unique ideas such as giving desperate alcoholics free liquor.

Having travelled in Europe where they have embraced similar ideas, I
believe it is only with a mixed basket of approaches that street
disorder, drug abuse and crime rates are truly addressed.

Harper should abandon the sloganeering and have a meaningful
discussion with Canadians about crime, drug addiction and the
perception that judges are soft on the bad guys.

I think most Canadians don't fully understand what is happening in
the legal system because they see only the tip of the iceberg.

Part of the problem is that our attention is driven by a focus on
violent and spectacular crime, which accounts for only a small
proportion of offences.

But also it's partly because we identify and sympathize with the
victim -- that's why the media frame most crime stories from the
perspective of the person who is attacked, robbed, hurt or killed.

The victim, when he or she can, their family and friends usually, not
always, but usually complain the offender in most cases has not been
punished enough.

Most want the sentence to deliver some kind of emotional closure and
to make the offender feel as badly as his behaviour made them feel.
It rarely does -- feelings of violation and the brush of violence in
a life are often devastating and take a long time to heal. Sometimes
they don't.

Often, I think most of the time, judges have correctly weighed and
balanced several interests to come to the appropriate sentence.

If the public were more aware of that process, popular opinion might
change. Perhaps.

Then again, maybe it just feels too good wagging a finger and
delivering a lecture.