TORIES FIXING SYSTEM BEFORE WE KNOW IT'S BROKEN

Did you happen to catch Corner Gas the other night? It was a classic.

Cranky old Oscar somehow ended up as a replacement school bus driver
and, knowing today's kids are all unruly hooligans, he imposed an
immediate zero-tolerance policy.

After his search for booze among the clean-cut, church-going
teenagers (who all called him "sir") turned up nothing, he banned
reading and confiscated their pens, until he finally provoked a riot.

I wonder if Justice Minister Rob Nicholson was watching.

Mr. Nicholson has introduced a law and order bill with tougher
sentences for young offenders, allows teenagers to be jailed from the
time they are charged throughout their trial and imposes mandatory
minimum sentences for serious drug crimes.

This is to address the general rise in incidence and severity of
youth crime, according to the Conservatives. Awareness of youth crime
tends to be high in York Region, probably because this was the scene
of one of the landmark cases - the severe beating that left
Newmarket's Jonathan Wamback in a coma.

And here in York Region, the youth crime rate dropped 1.1 per cent
between 2005 and 2006 - although the actual number of violent
incidents involving youth increased 11.2 per cent.

Police Chief Armand La Barge has cautioned residents against assuming
"three or four young people in your neighbourhood talking or smoking
are involved in criminal activity". The overall trend in youth crime
across Canada is down. So why are we so scared of "out of control teenagers"?

It has a lot to do with high-profile cases that receive a lot of
attention because they are, in fact, so unusual. Some, such as the
eight and nine-year-old boys in Georgia charged with sexually
assaulting an 11-year-old girl aren't even in Canada. But you don't
have to look far in the headlines to be alarmed. A 12-year-old was
killed in a school yard brawl in Quebec, a 12-year-old Alberta girl
was convicted of murdering her family .. you've heard it all.

But would a tougher sentence actually serve as a deterrent in any of
these cases? Does anyone honestly believe any of these kids
considered the possible jail sentence before they acted?

I seriously doubt they considered anything. The new legislation
requires judges to consider deterrence and denunciation when passing sentence.

Denunciation I get. A light sentence lets people think society
doesn't take the crime seriously. By punishing a criminal, society
expresses its opinion about the act.

There was a time when I'd agree deterrence was an issue, too. The old
Young Offenders Act carried at least the perception that if you were
under 18, you could get away with anything.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act is tougher. It does allow judges to
impose adult penalties on youths when warranted. It leaves the issue
to the judge's discretion.

A mandatory minimum sentence for drug offences takes away some of
that discretion. Although it wasn't included in Monday's
announcement, the government has said it plans to impose automatic
jail terms on young people convicted of violent crimes. Again, that
takes away a judge's discretion.

Now, I often disagree with judges and I've often wished they didn't
have as much leeway. But Ottawa is being inconsistent here.

The other week, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day announced Canada
will no longer oppose death sentences imposed on Canadians convicted
in the United States.

In other words, American judges can be trusted to make decisions
involving Canadians without the government of Canada getting involved.

So why can't we trust Canadian judges to render fair decisions?

It looks to me like the current legislation is striking a balance
that works fairly well. It has been around less than five years, so
we may only now seeing the impact.

A careful review is certainly in order (and already scheduled) and
the legislation might very well need more work. But it would be a
mistake to make major changes that could upset the apple cart,
however politically popular they might be, before that review.