RESPONDING TO CRIME: FEAR IS DRIVING THE AGENDA

In 1910, Winston Churchill stated that one of the "unfailing tests"
of a civilization lies in how it treats crime and criminals. In 1967,
Pierre Trudeau told Canadians that the state has no place in the
bedrooms of the nation.

Pronouncements from our current politicians are rather different in
tone. Conservative Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has opposed
same-sex unions, argued in favour of reducing the age of criminal
responsibility to 10, and suggested that if sexual orientation was to
become a protected category under Canada's hate crime legislation,
"homosexual activists" might sue hotel chains to remove Bibles as a
form of hate literature.

As part of a "getting tough on crime" agenda, Justice Minister Rob
Nicholson wants to impose a minimum term of six months in prison on
anyone who grows more than six marijuana plants, and to lengthen
terms of imprisonment in a wide range of other contexts (even though
rates of serious violent crime are much lower today than they were 30
years ago).

More simply put, the federal government wants to put more people in
jail. The approach that they advocate has no empirical support -- no
examples from other jurisdictions to establish that crime rates will
be affected in any beneficial manner. And yet the opposition, until
very recently, has avoided criticism of this legislative package,
explaining that they fear being tarred as "soft on crime." The
unfortunate reality is that many in opposition, like the
Conservatives, are allowing fear to drive their agenda. Worse than
that, they appear to believe that Canadians can't be convinced of the
unproductive and costly heart of the Conservative agenda. Worst of
all, our culture and our country are being shortchanged by a barrage
of name-calling and finger-pointing.

Consider two recent legislative initiatives and how they might have
been more productively handled. First, mandatory minimum terms for
marijuana growers. We know from polling that most Canadians don't
think that adults who use the drug should be treated as criminals.
Polling also tells us, however, that Canadians are concerned about
large-scale grow operations that have violence or the threat of
violence attached -- traps, handguns on the premises and the
possibility that children may be victimized.

A thoughtful minister of justice might say something like the
following: "We have no desire to target adult Canadians who use this
drug in private, by themselves, or with other consenting adults. We
do, however, have concerns about the violence attached to some parts
of the marijuana trade, and we are, accordingly, suggesting that
minimum terms of imprisonment be imposed in circumstances where
marijuana cultivation is combined with violence or the threat of
violence. We are not concerned about individuals who grow small
amounts of marijuana for themselves, but we are concerned about a
large-scale system of distribution, backed by violence or threats of violence."

Consider, secondly, the pardon granted to convicted sex offender
Graham James. The prime minister's office described the pardon as
"deeply troubling and gravely disturbing" and demanded an explanation
from the Parole Board, a reaction designed to foment public fear and anger.

A more responsible Conservative prime minister, one more in keeping
with the character of Winston Churchill, might have said something
like the following: "I understand that many Canadians, particularly
the victims of Mr. James, might be very upset by the granting of this
pardon. Current law dictates that there are only a few categories of
convicted criminals who are not eligible to apply for a pardon, most
notably those convicted of murder, and those designated as dangerous
offenders. I will ask the Parole Board to look into the specifics of
the granting of a pardon to Mr. James, and we will similarly
consider, as a government, whether there are other categories of
criminal conviction that might best be excluded from the pardon
process. The difficult task here is that of balancing individual case
decisions with the more broad objectives of granting pardons to those
convicted of criminal offences."

The objective in this instance is one of acknowledging a concern,
setting out potential solutions, and moving forward without fear or
anger as the motivating priorities. The tragedy is that Canada's
current approach to crime and justice is not about logic, frank
discussions or debates grounded in relevant information.

Neil Boyd is professor and associate director of the School of
Criminology at Simon Fraser University.