PRISONS SAY SOMETHING ABOUT A SOCIETY

It was a case of interesting timing.

Last week, the Supreme Court ordered the Harper government to exempt
Vancouver's Insite facility - where addicts can inject illegal drugs
in a "non-judgmental, medical environment" - from federal drug control laws.

Ironically, this came just days after the government announced it
would reintroduce an omnibus crime bill, which includes several new
mandatory sentences to "combat serious and organized drug crimes."

Clearly, two different philosophies of "harm reduction" are at play here.

Insite's supporters argue the facility has led to a reduction in
overdoses and related deaths, local HIV-AIDS and hepatitis C rates,
and crime in the area.

But the federal government is concerned about condoning illegal drug
use and the potential proliferation of similar centres across the country.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the government wants to "prosecute
those who sell drugs and create drug addiction ... and treat
addiction through programs of prevention and treatment, rather than
through so-called harm reduction."

The science upon which the Supreme Court based its decision isn't
without controversy. Was a 35 per cent drop in overdose deaths
between 2002 and 2007, for example, due to the efficacy of Insite or
the deployment of some 60 police officers to the area around it?
There are also emerging questions about the impartiality of some key
researchers who compiled Insite data.

The proposed federal crime bill, meanwhile, is also philosophically divisive.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson says new mandatory drug sentences
won't target "small-time pot farmers," addicts or those caught for
simple possession. They will apply only to trafficking, with
aggravating factors such as violence, selling to youth or
jeopardizing the safety of residential neighbourhoods.

But critics point to high costs, a lack of space at provincial
facilities to accommodate new drug rehabilitation provisions and an
anticipated boon to defence lawyers, as people do anything to avoid
mandatory sentences.

"It's Harper's early Christmas present," said one QC. "Good for
lawyers, bad for justice."

Of course one of the reasons government is proposing mandatory
sentences is because many convicted criminals are either lightly
sentenced or released before they should be by anonymous and
nontransparent parole boards.

Take the case of Randall Hopley, who was released and who then
allegedly abducted - but returned - little Kienan Hebert in Sparwood,
B.C., last month.

Back in 1985, after sexually assaulting a five-year-old, Hopley was
deemed a dangerous pedophile and a high risk to reoffend unless he
was "in a penitentiary or under 24-hour supervision in the community."

Sounds like a good candidate for a permanent ankle bracelet to me.

Hopley didn't receive psychological counselling because he "lacked
motivation and had limited mental abilities." Then again, something
appears to have tweaked his conscience.

So, what do we do with the Randall Hopleys of this world?

The fact is, even with mandatory sentences, most criminals are going
to be released eventually. And we all have a vested interest in what
happens inside jails - or in facilities such as Insite - because it
has such a direct bearing on what happens outside.

"Jails should be repair shops, not garbage dumps," former media mogul
Conrad Black (now back in prison in Florida) recently wrote,
criticizing Harper's proposed crime laws.

Many people in jail are not actually criminals, "but have been
convicted nonetheless after being bulldozed by the unequal
correlation of forces in favour of prosecutors." Judges, Black
writes, should "encourage, where practical, the swiftest possible
return to normal life those who are judged to be a threat neither to
society nor the physical safety of anyone."

Amid all the talk of harsh sentences and prison-building, it's
important not to forget that literacy training, educational
upgrading, anger management and trades courses also play a role in
reducing harm.

Sadly, it's too late for the prison farm program, which the Harper
government discontinued in 2009.

Canada's six prison farms, which supplied food to other correctional
facilities and local food banks, provided a sense of pride in work
and much-needed sensitivity toward other living beings.

It's ironic that countries such as the U.S., which have gone down the
tough justice road, are now looking at precisely such models.

Like it or not, prisons say something about us. And when inmates have
fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, had dysfunctional childhoods, can't
read - or are addicted to drugs - it's a collective problem.

After all, there but for the grace, right?