Time to rethink Jail sentences

Mandatory minimum sentences sound like a good idea, at least in theory. After
all, it seems to make sense that automatic jail time for serious offences would
deter would-be criminals, force overly lenient judges into line and keep bad
actors off the street.

That’s why mandatory minimum sentences have gained currency across Canada’s
political spectrum as spasms of violence have gripped Toronto and other cities.
Concerned by shocking instances of gun violence, the Star itself has
supported stiffening mandatory minimum sentences for serious gun crimes.

But a provocative Star series on crime and punishment, which
concludes today, has raised troubling questions about the effectiveness, costs
(economic and social) and unintended consequences of mandatory minimum
sentences. These concerns ought to be answered before this country heads any
further down that path, just as some jurisdictions in the United States are
going in the opposite direction.

Reacting to widespread outrage over horrifying crimes such as the Boxing Day
2005 shooting death of 15-year-old Jane Creba, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s
Conservative government has made mandatory minimum sentences a key plank in its
criminal justice policy. Canadian law already provided for about 40 mandatory
minimum sentences. But this spring, a new law took effect that toughened
mandatory sentences for serious gun crimes. It was supported by Premier Dalton
McGuinty, Mayor David Miller and other politicians who could hardly be described
as right wing.

The federal government is also proposing to add a range of drug production
and trafficking offences to the list of crimes for which judges must impose
minimum sentences.

Expanding mandatory minimum sentences may allay public fears and allow
politicians to claim they are getting “tough on crime.” But as the
Star‘s series suggests, it is not necessarily sound policy.

The U.S. experience provides a cautionary tale. Since the introduction of
mandatory minimum sentences there, prison populations and costs have ballooned
but the impact on crime rates has been questionable, prompting some states to
reconsider their policies.

In Canada, there are worries that more mandatory minimums will only
exacerbate a shortage of rehabilitation programs and space in prisons and sow
the seeds of recidivism. Already marginalized groups will bear the brunt –
particularly aboriginals, who are overrepresented in the federal prison
population.

Mandatory minimums may also pervert justice and drive up costs by prompting
some accused, whether guilty or not, to plead guilty to lesser charges to avoid
automatic jail terms.

Finally, by focusing on sentencing, governments have turned their attention
away from efforts to tackle the root causes of crime, including poverty.

In light of the questions this series has raised, Parliament should take a
hard look at mandatory minimum sentences before it expands them any further in a
headlong rush for easy fixes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s