TORY 'SENTENCING REFORM' WOULD LEAD TO MORE INJUSTICE

Last week, the Conservative Party of Canada released its plan for the
criminal justice system which sets out, among other things, that party's
proposals for "sentencing reform."

Two of the five proposals under this heading are proposals for mandatory
sentences. A third proposal would prevent a judge from imposing a
conditional sentence -- house arrest -- for certain categories of offence.

It is no doubt politically popular to propose such things. The plan is
entitled "Demand Safer Communities" and no doubt these proposals will be
sold as measures to get tough on crime.

Proposals such as these seek to limit the discretion of judges to impose
sentences, taking into account the circumstances of a particular case. To
believe that the mechanical application of mandatory sentences will produce
better results than careful consideration and judgment is to disregard
those charged with making these difficult decisions.

We trust our judges to determine the guilt or innocence of people accused
of committing offences. We should trust that they will impose appropriate
sentences on people who are found guilty. In my experience this trust is
well placed. If, in a particular case, either the Crown or the accused
believes that a sentence imposed by a trial judge was not appropriate they
are entitled to appeal the decision.

When we eliminate judges' discretion to sentence an offender and impose
mandatory sentences, we invite injustice. We see cases such as that of
Robert Latimer, the Saskatchewan farmer convicted of second-degree murder
for the mercy killing of his seriously disabled daughter.

Despite findings by the judge that Latimer was not a threat to society and
did not require any rehabilitation, he is now serving the mandatory minimum
sentence: Life in prison with no right to even apply for parole for 10 years.

One of the Conservative proposals is for mandatory "dangerous offender"
designations for persons convicted of a third violent or sexual offence. A
dangerous offender designation results in an indefinite sentence, with no
release date. Crown counsel already has discretion to request such a
designation where a person is convicted of a violent or sexual offence.

It need not be a third offence. A judge can hear evidence and decide if
such a designation is appropriate. It takes little imagination to conceive
how removing all discretion from Crown counsel and judges and substituting
a mandatory rule would result in many more Robert Latimers.

We all hope that our communities will be safe. We will not achieve that
objective by adopting an inflexible and mechanical justice system.