IS PM CLEANING UP JUSTICE, OR TROLLING FOR VOTES?

YESTERDAY Prime Minister Stephen Joseph Harper stood at the podium in
the cavernous Winnipeg Convention Centre and, like a steely-eyed
sheriff from some spaghetti western, vowed to clean up Canada.

All that was missing was the famous whistling riff from the Hang 'Em
High soundtrack.

As politicians tend to do when they can choose their audience, the
prime minister was preaching to the converted at the Manitoba
Chambers of Commerce luncheon.

Not that most Canadians would argue with his general theme. How could
anyone question a new government that wants to get serious about
targeting the menace, "Guns, gangs and drugs."

That was Harper's mantra yesterday.

"Guns, gangs and drugs." Canada's new law and order prime minister's
evangelical zeal for going after the organized crime hombres who run
drugs in this country plays well to any crowd outside of a Hells
Angels clubhouse.

But sitting there amidst a largely adoring audience, I couldn't help
but get the uneasy feeling that -- beyond what was unquestionably an
agenda based on a genuine believe in rigid, old-fashioned
eye-for-an-eye justice -- there was also a sense of manipulation and
perhaps even a hint of the disingenuous.

Using scare tactic phrases like "terror" in our streets, smacks of
manipulation.

And then in the context of giving police and prosecutors the "tools"
they need -- whatever that means -- the prime minister spoke of
"putting an end to conditional sentences."

In other words, an end to what some see as soft-on-crime house arrest.

Judging by the applause meter, the audience -- to its credit -- was
less enthusiastic about that plank in Harper's platform.

The prime minister went on to refer to "the current process of
allowing some criminals who have committed violent sexual, weapons or
drugs offences to serve out their sentences at home" and called it
"unconscionable."

Under Canada's new national government, he continued, serious
offenders would serve out their sentences where they should. Behind bars.

But how often do serious criminals who commit serious crimes really
end up doing their sentence under house arrest?

The term "serious crime" can be subjective, of course, but a person's
criminal record isn't.

Clearly the use of guns, and the horrific consequences of drug
trafficking or sexual predators, are crimes that should be taken
seriously by our governments and courts.

But, despite the public perception, in large measure "serious" crime
already is treated seriously.

The facts are that the current Criminal Code dictates that no one who
is sentenced to prison time -- that is two years or more -- is
eligible for "house arrest" now.

Coincidentally yesterday, there was a story in the paper about a
21-year-old Winnipeg man who was given a conditional sentence.

He had pled guilty to three robberies where there were no weapons
involved, no threats uttered, and where he didn't even wear a disguise.

The young man, who grew up in River Heights but dropped out of high
school, had been working and supporting his girlfriend in school when
she and her family introduced him to cocaine. Eventually, under the
threat of bodily harm, he resorted to the robberies to pay off his drug debts.

In the end he paid off what he stole, too, went to drug counselling
and has been clean since he was arrested nearly two years ago.

Is robbery a "serious" crime?

Of course.

But, given his background and what he's done to help himself since,
what useful purpose would be served in sending him to jail, where he
could easily become reinvolved in drugs and be led into a life of crime?

Associate Chief Justice Jeffrey Oliphant saw it that way, too.

He sentenced him to two years less a day, which made him eligible for
a conditional "house arrest" sentence.

Imprisoning the young man, Oliphant said, could destroy or
significantly damage his opportunity for rehabilitation.

And rehabilitation, after all, is what we all hope will be the
ultimate outcome for the offenders in our justice system. Don't we,
Mr. Prime Minister?