MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES OF LITTLE USE IN PUNISHING CRIMINALS

Courts have long been accused of doling out light sentences to serious
criminals, and critics have consequently been pressing for stiffer
sentences. But there are two ways to encourage harsher sentencing:
Parliament can increase maximum penalties, or it can impose mandatory
minimums for a given offence -- and the feds have wisely chosen the former
course.

Last week, Ottawa announced that crystal methamphetamine has been moved to
Schedule I in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which means those
producing and distributing the drug now face life in prison instead of a
maximum of 10 years. The maximum sentence for those possessing
methamphetamine "precursor" chemicals has also been increased.

Although courts rarely impose maximum sentences, the changes should signal
that Parliament wants courts to take meth dealing more seriously. Courts
are likely, therefore, to sentence meth dealers more harshly than they did
previously, even if they don't impose the maximum sentence.

Nevertheless, some critics, including B.C. Solicitor-General John Les and
Conservative MP Vic Toews believe Parliament should have gone further and
provided for a mandatory minimum sentence for meth dealers. However, the
matter of minimum sentences is fraught with problems.

A number offences in the Criminal Code include mandatory minimums, but
there's no logic underlying the decision to include minimum sentences.
Rather, Parliament usually enacts mandatory minimums in response to a
public outcry about specific offences. So second-time drunk drivers face a
minimum of 14 days in jail, yet people convicted of the much more serious
offence of manslaughter might not get any jail time at all.

That there's no logic underlying the current regime of minimum sentences is
the least of the difficulties: Evidence from both Canada and the United
States suggests that mandatory minimums fail to achieve their stated goal
of deterring crime -- Justice Minister Irwin Cotler is on record as saying
minimum sentences "don't work" -- and they cause a host of other problems.

A 2001 study commissioned by Justice Canada found absolutely no correlation
between the crime rate and the severity of sentences. There are, of course,
legitimate reasons to keep certain people in jail, but it's clear that
mandatory minimums have no deterrent or preventive effect.

Furthermore, Parliament has recognized that Canada imprisons far too many
of its citizens, especially for drug crimes. This places a tremendous
burden on society, and from a cost perspective it's disastrous, given that
taxpayers pay an average of $60,000 for each offender kept in jail.

Consequently, Parliament has instructed judges to consider all available
sanctions other than imprisonment when sentencing offenders. Tying judges'
hands by requiring the imposition of minimum sentences seems to run counter
to this instruction.

There is also evidence that judges and juries are less likely to convict
people who face minimum sentences, much as American juries are less likely
to convict those who face the death penalty. In fact, a study of section 85
of the Criminal Code, which imposes a mandatory minimum of one year in jail
for using a firearm in the commission of an offence, found that fully
two-thirds of charges were withdrawn.

Minimum sentences also increase both the number and length of trials,
because people are much less likely to plead guilty if they know they are
facing certain jail time. This markedly increases the burden on, and costs
of, the criminal justice system.

Finally, it's not even clear if mandatory minimums lead to increased
sentences, since judges tend to treat the minimum as a maximum -- that is,
they rarely impose more jail time than that required by the minimum sentence.

In dealing with the scourge of meth dealers, it might seem wise to impose
mandatory minimums, but on sober reflection, it appears the feds did the
right thing by avoiding them.