Re: Classic case of policy lurch that happens in winner-take-all electoral systems

As a rural resident, I am aware that if I call the RCMP to report a crime in progress on my property, their response time is uncertain. What I am certain of is the harm done and that the justice system may cause more harm. After serving their time, offenders face personal, economic, and/or social difficulties that increase the likelihood of reoffending.

The 2012 Omnibus Crime Bill was “Tough-on-Crime.” Even though the Canadian Bar Association and other experts tried their “darndest to get the Conservatives to listen to reason,” the bill passed because the Conservatives held the majority of seats. Now the Conservatives are concerned that the Liberals will pass a “Soft-on-Crime” bill. This is a classic case of the policy lurch that happens in winner-take-all electoral systems.

Whether our jail sentences are tough or soft, we are no safer. In a 2012 Senate report regarding the Omnibus Crime Bill, the authors identified effective crime reduction strategies. They stressed that “the overwhelming consensus of the [evidence] is that treatment works, incarceration does not.” It is not only too late to lock the barn after the horse is stolen, but also harmful to merely lock up the thief. Instead of after-crime policy lurch based in politics, we need before-crime policy agreement based on evidence. Since 1921, politicians on both sides of policy lurch, like Pierre Trudeau and Stephen Harper, have recommended electoral reform with proportional representation. Let’s stop doing hard time because of our electoral system. Support a NationalCitizensAssembly.ca.