CANADA WAGES PHONEY WAR ON CRIME

THE United States puts more people behind bars than any other western
democracy. So why is the Conservative government looking to the U.S.
as a model in its war on crime? It is a phoney war because crime has
declined in Canada. Traffic in drugs is a serious problem, but it
won't be solved by filling our jails, clearly shown in the American experience.

The government wants longer sentences with mandatory minimums for
more serious crimes. It also wants to curb use of conditional
sentences that impose house arrest instead of jail and may require
community work and restitution to the victim.

Russell Smandych, a professor of criminology at the University of
Manitoba, calls this policy "backward, restrictive and harmful."

It removes the discretion of judges and it assumes all offenders are
of one mould. Government policy will put more people in jail contrary
to the evidence that keeping people in the community is the way to
go. And the costs are enormous -- $81,000 to $100,000 to keep a
prisoner in a federal penitentiary.

Canada is not soft on crime as the Conservatives would have us
believe. Canada is in the mid mark of western democracies in jailing
people. The U.S. tops the list with more than two million prisoners.
According to the International Centre for Prison Studies in the U.K.,
figures for 2002 show the U.S. with 702 prisoners per 100,000
population; Russia, 628 and Canada, 116. In Scandinavian countries it
runs from about 60 to 80 per 100,000 people.

Evidence of extensive research shows imposing longer sentences does
not deter crime. Smandych notes that European crime rates are
comparable to the U.S. but the incarceration rates and the sentences
are much lower in Europe.

One reason for the lower rate of incarceration in Scandinavia is the
wide use of conditional sentences. In Finland, after the introduction
of conditional sentences, the incarceration rate dropped from 180 per
100,000 population in 1950 to about 70 today.

Do we want to reverse this process in Canada? Prime Minister Stephen
Harper has said the tougher measures will go a long way to stop "the
epidemic of guns, gangs and drugs that is plaguing our cities."

The U.S. record does not substantiate the emphasis on harsher
measures. The government began imposing mandatory minimum sentences
on drug offences in 1986. Since that time, according to the U.S.
Centre on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, the number of Americans put
behind bars on drug convictions has risen from 38,000 to 458,000 in
the year 2000.

Writes Peter McKnight, columnist for the Vancouver Sun: "This is
higher than the total number of people imprisoned for all offences in
European countries, despite the fact the European Union has 100
million more citizens than the U.S."

Mandatory minimum sentencing can be harsh because it prevents judges
from dealing in the fairest manner with the circumstances of the case.

In past years, House of Commons' committees have studied the
incidence of crime and have listed among the chief causes alienation,
poverty, lack of opportunity, family breakdown, mental illness and
substandard housing.

And invariably at the time of every federal election political
parties will campaign on law and order and demand tougher measures to
curb crime. It is used as a vote catcher and can be effective in the
face of media reports of gang crimes and the awful toll of drug trafficking.

Unquestionably the scourge of violent gangs and drugs must be
addressed. But overlooked is the whole picture: Violent crime has
been declining in most of the past two decades. And the record shows
that throwing the book at offenders hits the poorest and most
vulnerable in society. First Nations people are incarcerated at a
rate seven to eight times higher than the rest of the population!

The same is true of blacks and Hispanics south of the border. In
2004, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice, there were 3,218 male
blacks in prison per 100,000 population, compared to 1,220 Hispanic
and 462 white males.

Clearly more of the underprivileged go to jail. Do we want to
accentuate those figures in Canada?

Federal justice officials estimate that restricting conditional
sentences would probably increase the number in provincial jails by
3,800, a hike of 15 to 20 per cent. The U.S. rate of incarceration is
more than six times the rate in Canada. Do we want to follow that trend?

Instead of building more prisons we should ask why so many First
Nations are behind bars in the first place.