News (Media Awareness Project) - CN ON: Editorial: Let The 'Sunshine' In |
Title: | CN ON: Editorial: Let The 'Sunshine' In |
Published On: | 2007-04-10 |
Source: | Kingston Whig-Standard (CN ON) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-12 08:35:26 |
LET THE 'SUNSHINE' IN
What happens to all the money criminals make from drug deals? In
Kingston, more than half goes to pay the legal bills of the guilty.
Whig-Standard journalist Frank Armstrong discovered this using
Ontario's Freedom of Information law. Police records disclosed under
that law showed that $163,000 of the $285,000 Kingston police seized
in drug cases from 2001 to 2006 went to defence lawyers. One police
officer called this "morally upsetting."
Crime fighters feel money seized from criminals should be poured into
victim-help programs or a host of other good things. Some defence
lawyers, on the other hand, argue that because legal aid pays so
poorly, they should be able to tap that drug lucre in order to
properly represent the accused.
Who's right? We can't say, but what we do know is that it's an
important topic for public scrutiny and debate. And it came to light
only because the province has an information law under which the
public can apply to obtain these facts.
Ontario has other laws that encourage the flow of information. One,
for instance, requires public institutions to list all employees who
are paid more than $100,000 a year. The Whig has been writing about
these lists recently. And while it may seem voyeuristic to find out
that a top educator in Kingston earned $366,875 last year, such
numbers are important when placed in the context of a cash-strapped
education system. Knowing what leading public servants are paid, and
why, helps everyone ask questions.
Here's a third example of how a "sunshine" law makes it possible to
obtain pertinent data. In Ontario, candidates for municipal office
must make public the list of all contributions to their campaigns of
over $100. The Whig recently published some of this data. Voters may
find it valuable to know who backs whom.
These quick examples explain why journalists favour public disclosure
and why we fight tax-funded institutions that won't publish basic
data. You're entitled to be informed when you debate government
policies. You can't do it if you can't see the relevant information.
What happens to all the money criminals make from drug deals? In
Kingston, more than half goes to pay the legal bills of the guilty.
Whig-Standard journalist Frank Armstrong discovered this using
Ontario's Freedom of Information law. Police records disclosed under
that law showed that $163,000 of the $285,000 Kingston police seized
in drug cases from 2001 to 2006 went to defence lawyers. One police
officer called this "morally upsetting."
Crime fighters feel money seized from criminals should be poured into
victim-help programs or a host of other good things. Some defence
lawyers, on the other hand, argue that because legal aid pays so
poorly, they should be able to tap that drug lucre in order to
properly represent the accused.
Who's right? We can't say, but what we do know is that it's an
important topic for public scrutiny and debate. And it came to light
only because the province has an information law under which the
public can apply to obtain these facts.
Ontario has other laws that encourage the flow of information. One,
for instance, requires public institutions to list all employees who
are paid more than $100,000 a year. The Whig has been writing about
these lists recently. And while it may seem voyeuristic to find out
that a top educator in Kingston earned $366,875 last year, such
numbers are important when placed in the context of a cash-strapped
education system. Knowing what leading public servants are paid, and
why, helps everyone ask questions.
Here's a third example of how a "sunshine" law makes it possible to
obtain pertinent data. In Ontario, candidates for municipal office
must make public the list of all contributions to their campaigns of
over $100. The Whig recently published some of this data. Voters may
find it valuable to know who backs whom.
These quick examples explain why journalists favour public disclosure
and why we fight tax-funded institutions that won't publish basic
data. You're entitled to be informed when you debate government
policies. You can't do it if you can't see the relevant information.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...