HARPER GETS TOUGH ON THE LIBERALS

It's difficult to imagine now, but there was a time when politicians
considered it unseemly to grandstand on crime. Policy oversight in
the calm setting of a legislative committee was one thing, but no
responsible leader would whip up fear, or leap at tragedy, simply to
score a few points in the polls.

That understanding still holds in some European countries but in
Canada it's gone and forgotten. Following the American lead --
beginning with the 1964 presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater --
Canadian politicians gradually embraced the tactics of fear and
loathing. What would have been considered despicable a generation ago
- -- naming laws after dead children, using victims as campaign props
- -- has become standard operating procedure.

Which brings us to the government's crime omnibus bill, the so-called
Tackling Violent Crime Act. During the last federal election
campaign, the Conservatives laid out a series of fairly precise crime
reforms they said they would enact if elected. This was billed as one
of their "five priorities," and they were indeed elected, so there's
no question they have a democratic mandate to attempt (it is only a
minority, after all) to pass this legislation.

It also makes sense that the reforms should proceed in an omnibus
bill. They're not terribly complicated. They all deal with the same
subject and they all follow a similar line -- making existing laws
stricter or more punitive.

But when the Conservatives took office, they decided against an
omnibus bill. Instead, they introduced their changes in bits and
pieces and rather than pushing them hard, they nudged them along at a
leisurely pace.

But proceed they did. Some parts of the new omnibus bill were
actually close to finishing their travels through the snake's belly
when the government yanked them back, bundled them into this new bill
and shoved the package back into the snake's mouth.

It was a naked demonstration that for the Conservatives, this is far
less about policy than it is about politics.

First came a throne speech in which the Conservatives all but dared
the hapless Liberals to vote against the government and trigger an
election. The Liberals put their hands in their pockets and stared at
their feet. This was immediately followed by the crime bill, which
the Conservatives said could not be amended and which would be
treated as a confidence matter that could, once again, trigger an
election. This is what schoolkids everywhere know as a "double-dare."
Now we see why the Tories were so casual in advancing their crime
bills. And we also see just how sincere they are about the value of
this legislation.

They have said for years that crime is a growing menace and the
streets are being overrun by -- as Mr. Harper likes to say -- "guns,
gangs and drugs." This is nonsense, but they claim to believe it. The
solution, they say, are these urgent reforms. And yet, the
Conservatives dithered. And hedged. And played political games. And
generally did not behave as one would expect of politicians who
genuinely believe innocent lives are at stake.

The Liberals are in a quandary. If they vote against the bill, they
will be blamed for launching an election -- even though they
desperately want to avoid one -- and that election will likely
feature crime as one of its top issues. Nothing could be better for the Tories.

Public opinion surveys routinely show that when people are given
substantial information and asked to really think about crime policy,
majorities oppose mandatory minimum sentences and the rest of the
tough-on-crime package. But when people are only asked for a quick
and emotional response --"should violent criminals be sent to prison
longer?" -- opinion swings hard the other way. As every strategist
knows, campaigns are all about quick and emotional responses -- so an
election in which crime features prominently will always favour the
guy talking tough.

And what if the Liberals (and NDP) vote for the bill, as it now seems
they will? They will have formally endorsed the view that longer
sentences are an effective way to reduce crime -- even though a
mountain of criminological research says otherwise. They will also
have given the thumbs-up to mandatory minimum sentencing -- despite
jurists' uniform opposition to such sentences because of their
well-documented tendency to produce injustices.

Then the Tories will have the Liberals at their mercy. Every time a
high-profile crime occurs, the Conservatives will be able to respond
with a crowd-pleasing promise to pass a new mandatory minimum
sentence, or to make the existing minimum tougher -- and the Liberals
will have no grounds on which to object. Eventually, triangulating
Liberals will decide the only way to stop being thumped on crime is
to make their own get-tough proposals.

The result will be a general rise in sentence severity. Prison
populations will swell. Correctional budgets will soar. And it will
make little difference to public safety.

This is not speculation. It is the history of American justice over
the last 25 years.

To understand what a mistake it would be to travel down this road,
MPs should read the chapter comparing Canadian and American crime
trends in Franklin Zimring's The Great American Crime Decline.

Of course, that assumes there are still some politicians who think
crime policy is more important than crime politics, and that is an
increasingly dubious proposition.