STUDIES ON SENTENCING DO NOT ALLOW FIRM CONCLUSIONS

Re: Tories have 'faith' in get-tough gun sentences, but no evidence
they'll work, May 10.

Dan Gardner tries to make the point that other commentators keep
making, that mandatory minimum or longer sentences do not reduce
crime. Mr. Gardner cites a variety of statistical studies purporting
to support this view. It should be noted that it is extremely
difficult to establish a cause-and-effect relationship on the basis
of statistical studies alone. A lot of hurdles have to be overcome to
go from a simple association of two factors to the establishment of a
cause-effect relationship between those two factors.

Mr. Gardner keeps stressing that there is no evidence to support the
notion that tougher sentences deter criminals. In doing so, he
disregards two important realities. The first is that absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence. The second is that some of the
most important decisions that have to be made by political, business
or even medical authorities are not always rooted in hard evidence.
Just ask your doctor. How often is the doctor's advice based on hard evidence?

If Mr. Gardner is convinced that longer sentences do not deter crime,
then he must be prepared to answer a rather obvious question. Would
shorter sentences deter crime?

Some commentators get around this inconvenient logic by suggesting
that it is not the sentence that deters crime, it's the fear of
getting caught. Again, this proposition does not lend itself to an
easy test based on statistical analysis. But if it's true that the
fear of getting caught is what deters criminals, would it still work
if the sentences were more lenient?

I think there are sufficient statistical and logical issues to
prevent us from reaching hard conclusions on this issue. About the
only thing that we can say for sure is that as long as criminals are
incarcerated, their ability to commit further crimes is substantially reduced.

Tony Manera

Kanata