FULLER JAILS WON'T MEAN SAFER STREETS

For every unpopular decision or move away from the beliefs on which
they were elected, the federal Conservatives manage to find the mark.

The home renovation tax credit and the GST cut are examples of
instances where they were able to distill policy in line with what
average Canadians want to see from government.

And in some ways, the tough-on-crime agenda meets the criteria,
especially when it comes to ending the much reviled two-for-one
sentencing credit for time spent in pre-trial custody.

Many Canadians agree with the notion, as Public Safety Minister Vic
Toews explained last week, that the Tories stand "behind the idea
that individuals should in fact serve the time they've been sentenced to."

All well and good, except all of these measures, new spending in an
era of tackling rather large deficits, are going to cost a lot of coin.

The cost of the so-called Truth-in-Sentencing law, just one of
several pieces of Tory tough-on-crime legislation, is in dispute,
with Toews suggesting it's a scant $2 billion, while reports indicate
the parliamentary budget officer has it pegged at five times that amount.

Somewhere in that gap lies the real cost, and when it's added to the
several other measures in the hopper, including minimum jail time for
drug crimes, we're left with a large expense to the taxpayer without
any real indication our streets will be any safer.

Sure, there will be many people who wind up serving time they
rightfully deserve, which is a good thing.

But in having to live up to their tough-on-crime cred, the more the
Tories are losing their tight-budget cred.

Toews argues that money will be saved by double-bunking cons.

But it's time this government realizes that streets can be made
safer, and money saved, by not throwing every anti-social type under
lock and key.

Drug court funding hikes would be a good start, as would stepping
away from some mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug crimes.

Because the more people we keep out of jail who don't belong there,
the more room we have for the worst of the worst.