GOVERNMENT MOVING TO AMERICAN-STYLE JUSTICE

Canada's crime rate is at a 30-year low, with both the rate and the
severity of reported crime falling constantly over that time.

So it seems odd that the federal government would respond by adopting "get
tough on crime" policies similar to those in the United States, where the
prison population is by far the highest in the world thanks to mandatory
sentences and prison terms for minor offences - one in four prisoners on
earth is behind bars in the United States. And yet America still has some
of the highest crime rates in the developed world.

Few would argue that America's "get tough on crime" policies have made it
safer or reduced the crime rate, as it demonstrably hasn't.

Canada's federal prisons contain only 13,000 inmates, most of whom are in
prison for serious crimes.

The United States has 2.6 million people behind bars for crimes as minor
as passing a bad cheque or possessing a small amount of drugs. It is the
only country in the world that incarcerates people for minor property
crimes, and drug offences have swollen the numbers of prisoners. In 1980
there were 40,000 people in American prisons for drug offences. Now there
are 500,000.

The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with 751 people
in prison for every 100,000 population. As a proportion of adults, about
one in 100 adult Americans are in prison. That's about 600 per cent higher
than any other developed nation.

And in states where the "get tough on crime" mantra has been taken most
seriously, the rate is even higher. It is 1,000 per 100,000 population in
Texas, and more than 1,200 per 100,000 in Louisiana.

The American incarceration rate remained fairly stable at 110 people per
100,000 population imprisoned, from the 1920s to 1975. This rate is more
or less in line with the rest of the developed world. With the "get tough
on crime" movement, there was a huge spike in people in prison, but not
much effect on crime rates.

Canada's incarceration rate is currently 110 per 100,000-a fraction of
America's, and yet we live in a much safer country.

Has the "get tough on crime" mentality worked in the United States? The
violent crime rate in the United States was as low as 160 incidents per
100,000 in the 1960s and remained fairly low through the first half of the
1970s. In 2008 it was 454.5 per 100,000. The American murder rate was 4.6
per 100,000 in 1963. Last year it was 5.4.

In Canada our murder rate is 1.4 per 100,000.

Some of America's prisons are operated by for-profit businesses, which has
led to horrific abuses, ranging from prisons refusing medical care to
prisoners to boost profits, to a few infamous cases of prison companies
paying judges per conviction to help keep the prisons full.

After looking at those basic facts, can anyone see any logic behind the
Harper government's moves to try to make Canada's justice system, which
has led to a 30-year-low crime rate, more like America's, where the prison
system is clearly dysfunctional and crime rates are much higher?

While they haven't trumpeted their anti-crime campaign, one-third of the
63 bills introduced into the House of Commons in the past year have dealt
with some aspect of criminal justice.

Groups from the police to prosecutors argue that new legislation intended
to get tough with drug users will clog up the justice system and overcrowd
prisons. Many of the reforms will put more people in prison for longer
terms, and make it more difficult for convicts to earn early release.

One of the reforms is intended to end the common practice of judges of
crediting those serving jail terms with two days remission for every day
spent in custody while awaiting trial or sentencing. This was introduced
when judges recognized that the delay between arrest and trial was
confining those accused who could not post bail in remand centres, where
conditions are tougher than in prison.

The federal Conservatives apparently feel they know much better than
judges or the other professionals who work in the justice system.

At the Senate's hearings into the measure, Canadian criminal lawyers said
that ending the credit would transform bail hearings into mini-trials, and
would cause lawyers to make their first priority getting clients in
custody into court, rather than those out on bail, regardless of the
severity of the charges.

The association representing Crown prosecutors even weighed in to ask
senators to take a look at how the legislation would affect the entire
system, which they said was already well over capacity.

The Senate made amendments based on the recommendations of every side in
the justice system, but were bullied by the Harper government into backing
down.

All three opposition parties say they oppose the changes, but none want to
appear "soft on crime," so their opposition has not been too vocal.

Canada may be moving closer to an American-style justice system whether
most people want that or not.

Let's just hope it works better here than there.