GET SMART, NOT TOUGH, ON CRIME

We are remarkably sloppy in our thinking about crime.

The failings, highlighted again by a report that debunked the myth of
lenient sentences in B.C., are shared by citizens, government and media.
And they get in the way of pragmatic changes that could reduce crime and
increase public safety.

The provincial government commissioned the study to examine sentencing
patterns because it believed B.C. courts were too soft on crime. The 2008
throne speech promised the review, saying "British Columbians want to
understand why sentences in their province tend to be shorter than in
other provinces for crimes such as homicide, theft, property crimes,
fraud, impaired driving and drug possession."

The analysis by two Ontario criminologists found that on the whole
sentences are not more lenient in B.C. In fact, they are harsher than in
other provinces for many offences, the report found, and overall are
consistent with penalties elsewhere.

Sentencing for some offences -- drug trafficking and impaired driving are
two examples -- tends to be involve shorter prison stays. But sentences
for other crimes are harsher. A robbery conviction is more likely to
result in jail time in B.C. than in other provinces, and the typical
sentence is significantly longer. Breaking and entering brings similar
sentences in B.C. for those who are sent to jail. But seven out of 10
offenders do jail time here, compared with six out of 10 in the seven
other provinces used as comparators.

The authors say that factor -- the rate of incarceration -- is important.
An average prison term of six months in B.C., compared with eight months
in other provinces, might create the impression the courts here are more
lenient.

But the reality, for some offences, is that judges here are more likely to
opt for short prison terms for offenders who in other provinces would be
placed on probation. Those short sentences affect the average, but do not
mean serious offenders are being treated more leniently.

The report also notes the fundamental fallacy behind the obsession with
sentencing -- the mistaken belief that longer jail terms decrease crime.
The authors note that harsher sentences only work if certain conditions
are in place. Offenders must stop and think before they act, assessing the
threat of jail. They must know about the potential sentence and,
critically, must decide there is a significant chance they will be caught.

It's rare that all -- or any -- of those conditions apply. Criminals,
especially the addicted who commit 90 per cent of property offences in
Victoria, are not much given to calculating consequences.

Locking people up provides a temporary break from their activities, but no
other benefits.

The preoccupation with sentencing blocks real progress on effective
crime-fighting measures. The province's first community court, for
example, has shown early success since being launched in September. The
court, in Vancouver, gives offenders a choice -- continue through the
regular justice system, or commit to community work and a real life change
away from crime. The court links offenders with needed services, like
addiction treatment and housing, and sends them back into the regular
legal system if they fail to follow through. It's an effective alternative
to a life of crime and jail.

Yet efforts to bring a community court to Victoria, where the chamber of
commerce and the city have backed the idea, have been rejected by the
province because of costs. No action is likely before 2010.

Early intervention, support for the mentally ill, increased and targeted
enforcement -- there are a number of ways of crime prevention that have
been proven effective, but are still too rarely applied to the problems.
More fundamental changes, like legalization and regulation of some drugs,
would do much to reduce serious crime and gang activity.

It's time to get smart on crime and make decisions based on facts, not
fears and wishful fantasies.