LIBERALS' 'TOUGH ON CRIME' STANCE NEEDS SCRUTINY

Increasing jail time may have political appeal but it accomplishes
little. To limit crime, Liberals need to consider what works, not
what sounds good

Fiorello La Guardia, the mayor of New York in the 1930s and '40s,
said, "There is no Democratic or Republican way of cleaning the
streets." La Guardia made a profound point in a simple way. Some
things are not political. There is a right and a wrong way to keep
streets clean; the same can be said for criminal justice.

Unfortunately, rather than asking what works, many recent changes to
our criminal justice system are based on scoring political points.
Pierre Trudeau called for "reason over passion" and he was right.
Being "tough on crime" may have political appeal but it accomplishes
little and bears significant costs. Prison is sometimes appropriate,
as surgery is sometimes appropriate for disease, but a good doctor
does not employ surgery for a head cold.

That does not mean prison has no role to play in the justice system.
Someone in prison is not committing crimes outside of jail. That
said, deterrence and rehabilitation seem to be qualified failures -
in fact, increasing the use of jail seems to increase crime and makes
reoffending more common.

In 1999, researchers at the University of New Brunswick examined 50
studies on recidivism that covered more than 300,000 offenders. They
found that the longer someone spent in jail, the more likely they
were to commit another crime when they got out. The researchers found
the impact was most significant for low-risk offenders - suggesting
prison may be a "school of crime" that makes people worse, not better.

The trouble is that trying to deter crime through fear does not work.
The concept of the criminal as rational actor is wrong. Mental
illness is widespread through the criminal system. Drug abuse and
psychiatric disorders are such common precursors of crime as to make
the concept of the typical criminal as rational actor who is deterred
by punishment absurd.

Crime is largely a reflection of underlying social failings. A recent
judgment from Sudbury pointed out the problem:

"Poverty is the first fuel that drives crime. It becomes mixed in
with the destabilization of families, widespread substance abuse,
child abuse, sexual abuse and domestic violence ..."

As a whole, Canada is safe from crime. Violent crime has been
generally dropping for years and was lower in 2007 than at any time
in two decades.

Similarly, property crimes are down; the recent rate is more than 40
per cent below a peak in 1991. One crime is too many, but overall
Canada is safer than ever.

There are communities that are in trouble and to address crime we
need to address the problems in those communities. First Nations
constitute about 3 per cent of the general population but 17 per cent
of prisoners in the federal system. This gross overrepresentation is
a reflection of deeper problems within First Nations communities.
About one in 200 non-aboriginal children are cared for by the state
compared to one in 10 First Nations children. And yet, First Nations
child welfare agencies receive about a fifth less funding than
provincial agencies. Poverty and addiction are rampant in First
Nations and aboriginal children are far more likely to experience
neglect than non-aboriginal children. Fixing the criminal problem in
First Nations does not require more jails; it requires social
programs that focus on systemic community issues.

Similarly, mental health issues underlie many crimes. Eleven per cent
of the federal prison population today were certified as mental
health patients at the time of incarceration. Spend a day in any
criminal court in Canada and the prevalence of mental illness is
obvious. The mentally unstable do not respond well to prison and are
seldom deterred by the prospect of incarceration.

Prison, regardless of its efficacy, is not cheap. The average annual
cost of keeping a federal inmate behind bars last year was $93,030.
There are currently 13,581 inmates costing more than $1 billion.
American states, such as California, that rely on lengthy mandatory
sentences have found crime is not reduced but the state is rendered
insolvent. Money spent on jails is money not spent on hospitals or
schools or roads.

So what is to be done?

First, we have to realize that real crime control requires a social
safety net. Children raised in poverty, communities that are
alienated from broader society, and untreated mentally unstable
individuals all contribute to crime. Such a safety net may seem
costly, but in the long run it will save money by limiting prison
costs and creating productive citizens.

Second, we need to study what actually works. Does increasing prison
terms actually cut crime? My own experience suggests that prison does
deter white-collar criminals, some drug dealers and some impaired
drivers. Drug addicts and the mentally unstable are not deterred. Can
prison actually rehabilitate? Some American research suggests
faith-based counselling can rehabilitate; but it also leads,
sometimes, to a risk of radicalization.

Finally, we should consider what is and what is not criminal. It
makes sense to criminalize the sale of addictive poisons. But why are
cigarettes legal while a little less than 50,000 Canadians a year are
criminally charged with possession of marijuana?

These points are practical. To limit crime in Canada we need to
consider what works and not what sounds good in the media. "Reason
over passion" is a motto we should apply to Canada's criminal justice system.

I am a proud Liberal in the tradition of Laurier, Pearson and
Trudeau. We can present a consistent and principled alternative to
the Conservatives. We cannot be true to our principles and merely
repeat platitudes about being "tough on crime." Canada deserves
better and we can, and must, do better.