Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Commit the crime, do the time (Canadian election: gun violence issue)
National Post - Canada ^ | Monday, January 09, 2006 | Lorne Gunter (NP - Editorial)

Posted on 01/09/2006 10:18:24 AM PST by GMMAC

Commit the crime, do the time

Lorne Gunter
National Post
Page: A12
Section: Editorials
Monday, January 09, 2006


Last week, federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler contradicted his party leader, Paul Martin, on an important part of the Liberal anti-crime platform -- mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes.

On Thursday, Mr. Cotler told The Toronto Star he would not be "pressured" into introducing mandatory sentences. When he was a law professor, he explained, he once thought minimum sentences should work to deter crime. But after studying the literature, he became convinced they "are neither a deterrent nor are they effective."

By Friday, though, Mr. Cotler was insisting to the National Post that he and his PM were on the same page -- that while minimum sentences might have no practical effect, they send an important message of "denunciation" to those who might murder, rape or mug.

Ah, yes, that old liberal belief in symbolism over substance: Simply send the right message and human behaviour will be altered. Wag our collective finger at drug dealers and murderers and they will stop.

Shame on you, bad men. Shame, shame, shame.

Never mind that Mr. Cotler believes the empirical evidence proves the uselessness of minimum sentences, he would implement them anyway because the social message behind them might disgrace hardened criminals into not committing their crimes. (And because promising to implement them might re-elect his party.)

Frankly, I doubt the academic studies on mandatory sentences are as conclusive as Mr. Cotler asserts.

In June, a bibliographic analysis conducted by the Library of Parliament for Saskatchewan MP Garry Breitkreuz concluded, "There is little research dealing with the effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences in Canada." Neither Mr. Cotler's own department nor Statistics Canada could point to any proof that the sentences worked or didn't work. Indeed, in an exhaustive study conducted for Justice in 2002, the authors argue for more research "which examines the patterns of use of mandatory minimum penalties, their effects on sentence length, incarceration rates, crime rates, levels of recidivism ... levels of public awareness of existing penalties and cost/benefit analyses."

When Mr. Cotler and the criminologists and prisoners' rights advocates who oppose minimum sentences tell the public the research shows they don't work, there is probably a lot of circular reassurance going on. Liberal politicians don't want them, so they point to academics and advocates who say they don't work. Advocates say the academics have shown them to be ineffective and crow that few enlightened politicians will implement them, while academics cite the advocates who say there is no proof of their effectiveness and point to political opposition.

I, too, doubt that minimum sentences will do much to reduce gun crime, but not for the reasons cited by Mr. Cotler and his experts. In several jurisdictions where hard-nosed politicians have passed them, implementation has been thwarted by liberal judges and prosecutors who have found clever ways around them.

The key is not sentencing gun criminals to long periods in jail. Anyone can do that, including Liberal justice ministers who don't believe doing so will be effective. The key is keeping gun criminals in jail longer.

There are already lots of laws against gun use during crimes, such as five years for pointing a gun during a crime, and up to 14 years for shooting it. The problem is, these added charges are often plea-bargained away by Crown prosecutors eager to get guilty pleas to the underlying charge such as murder or robbery. Worse yet, a decade ago, Ottawa and the provinces made a conscious decision to reduce dramatically the number of criminals who go to jail in Canada. Now, only about one in five convicted criminals will actually spend any time in prison, and most of those will spend less than six months.

Two-thirds of the adults accused of murder in Canada in 2004 already had criminal records. Seventy percent of those had committed a violent crime before. And 8% had previous murder convictions.

Had they still been in jail for their earlier crimes, there is no way they could of committed new ones.

Mandatory minimum sentences are nothing more than a political sideshow if there is no truth in sentencing. So long as criminals know a long sentence means only a few months of jail time, if that, all the get-tough sentences in the world will do nothing to cut down on gunplay in the streets.

© National Post 2006


TOPICS: Canada; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: canada; conservatives; courts; election; guncrime; liberals


1 posted on 01/09/2006 10:18:26 AM PST by GMMAC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fanfan; Pikamax; Former Proud Canadian; Great Dane; Alberta's Child; headsonpikes; Ryle; ...
PING!
2 posted on 01/09/2006 10:19:13 AM PST by GMMAC (paraphrasing Parrish: "damned Liberals, I hate those bastards!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC

Violent crime in the United States has been going down every year. Incidentally prison population has increased. 2+2= anyway?


3 posted on 01/09/2006 10:20:55 AM PST by manglor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC

Great comic! I don't have TV at my place, but happened to catch one of Martin's ads at a friends. Something to the effect of: 'Paul Martin wants to take guns away from criminals, Steven Harper supports criminals having guns'. Had a chuckle to say the least.


4 posted on 01/09/2006 11:36:41 AM PST by proud_yank (Guns cause crime like forks cause Michael Moore to be fat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proud_yank
My favorite Librano$ TV ad is the one which, after presenting pro-Liberal sound bites from every imaginable minority, concludes "... there are over 30 million reasons to vote Liberal."

Surely, I'm not alone in immediately reacting:
" yeah, but based on the estimates of tax dollars still 'missing' alone, there are definitely one Hell of a lot more reasons not to !!!" - LOL!
5 posted on 01/09/2006 12:16:05 PM PST by GMMAC (paraphrasing Parrish: "damned Liberals, I hate those bastards!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC

LOL, You're '20 reasons to vote Liberal' post was pretty good. Maybe I should hook up the rabbit ears to my TV so I get some reception, Though bleeding heart reporters make me want to throw my TV.

As much conservative bashing as people do, one would think that looking at unemployment rates province to province (i.e. AB to Ont & Quebec) would be a good indicator that something is wrong with liberal policy. Then again, that would involve 'thinking' :-)

Favorite headline I saw on my way to school a couple weeks ago was from the Edmonton Journal. "Liberals Come Out Swinging- Conservative government will leave you to fend for yourselves". Personally, those are the headlines that I like to hear.


6 posted on 01/09/2006 1:04:07 PM PST by proud_yank (Guns cause crime like forks cause Michael Moore to be fat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson