OTTAWA'S DRUG PROBLEM: THE PENALTY DOESN'T FIT THE CRIME

This is the first in a three-part series on proposed reforms to our
justice system. Next Monday: the International Transfer of Offenders Act

The federal government has promised to reintroduce its Penalties for
Organized Drug Crime Act - a bill that died when the spring election
was called. The bill is aimed at combatting illicit drug production
and distribution by imposing harsher penalties on organized crime,
such as six-month minimum prison sentences for those found growing as
few as six marijuana plants and a two-year minimum sentence for those
selling marijuana to persons under 18 near schools.

Does organized crime really cultivate just six marijuana plants in
its grow-ops? Six months for six plants! Why not seven, like the
musical Seven Brides for Seven Brothers? Unfortunately, sentencing
isn't a musical. Two years in jail for giving marijuana to a friend
near a school? What does "near" mean? Anything less than far? If the
marijuana is given or sold "near any other public place, usually
frequented by persons under the age of 18," it's also a mandatory
sentence of two years. What public place in urban areas isn't
"usually frequented by persons under the age of 18"? Does the
government really think that an 18-year-old giving or selling
marijuana to his friend near a school constitutes organized crime?

There are at least two problems with this approach. First, many
studies demonstrate that increases in penalties will not affect
crime. This has been known for years. Eighteen years ago, a
Progressive Conservative Party of Canada election platform noted that
the answer to offending "does not lie in simply building more prisons
and getting more police. If that were true, then the United States
would be the safest place on Earth." Similarly, that same year
(1993), the Reform Party urged "greater certainty in sentencing"
rather than increased imprisonment.

Second, this isn't the best way to deal with Canada's illicit drug
problem. Imprisonment is very costly and, if it's being justified as
a means to address drug problems or achieve public safety, the
government needs to demonstrate that imprisonment is the most
cost-effective way of achieving reduction in drug use, production and
trafficking. It won't be able to do this. Interestingly, it never tried.

Placing eight or nine people in a penitentiary for drug offences
costs $1-million a year. But certain types of targeted policing can
reduce the incidence of drug sales. A million dollars is the cost of
about 12 police officers for a year. Which would we prefer: 12 more
police officers or eight or nine more people in jail?

Teachers, public health nurses and those treating people for drug
addiction can also serve to reduce Canada's drug problems. A million
dollars is the cost of 14 more public health nurses or teachers, the
benefits from which would extend far beyond any reduction in the use of drugs.

We need to debate these options. In justifying the expansion of the
use of imprisonment for drug offenders and other crimes, the
government says: "A safe and secure society is worth the cost."
Almost everyone supports a safe, secure, addiction-free society.
Wouldn't a fiscally responsible government want to ensure that it
achieved the greatest possible benefit for the money it invested?

Focusing on jail to reduce the illicit use of drugs has been proved
to be an expensive way to fail. Increasing imprisonment will have
very little, if any, net impact on drug use.

The manner in which we sentence those who violate our laws is
important. Various committees and commissions over the past 50 years
have consistently noted that sentencing in Canada needs serious
attention. Reasonable people can differ on how they want sentences to
be determined, but most Canadians appear to prefer that sentences
reflect the seriousness of the offence.

By addressing sentencing for drug offences in an unprincipled and
incoherent manner and by suggesting that its new set of drug
sentences will help address Canada's drug problem, the government is
doomed to failure on two counts: It will not address Canada's drug
problems, and it will make sentences less coherent than they are at the moment.