`Tough on crime' isn't the answer
Re: NP view: Soft on Crime,
March 23.
The National Post's “soft on crime” editorial that ran in the NP2 section last Saturday allows admittedly understandable emotions to trump reason. While there has been a rise in some crimes in the last year or two, the causes are many and varied and the sentencing ranges available to judges have not meaningfully changed for decades.
The second paragraph of the editorial refers to “irresponsible advocates” who state that crime will magically wind down with free drugs, generous bail, light sentences etc. I have never heard anyone suggesting such nonsense. What many do argue is that harsh sentencing is expensive and has no detectable effect on crime rates. Sentences tailored to reduce the likelihood of recidivism make most sense for anyone receiving a finite sentence. Allowing offenders to serve the last part of their sentence in supervised conditions designed to secure employment, education, housing and mental health supports, if needed, makes more sense than releasing offenders on the last day of their sentence without supports.
What is irresponsible is the characterization of some Supreme Court of Canada rulings. The court did not rule that four years in jail for shooting at a house was unconstitutional. Anyone doing that will almost certainly receive a sentence at least that long. What the court did rule was that the sentencing provision covered a few situations where such a sentence would be unjust. A provision making a minimum sentence presumptive, rather than mandatory, solves the problem.
A drug dealer selling his poison to many would be unlikely to receive a sentence as light as one year but “drug trafficking” includes an addict sharing drugs with a fellow addict or an intellectually challenged individual talked into helping a dealer on one occasion for little or no profit.
The law is racially neutral but the social and other circumstances of our Indigenous people, for example, are different than for the majority population.
Crime statistics have been collected in the democratic world for well over a century. They appear to demonstrate that harsh sentencing costs a lot of money, but has little or no effect on crime rates. What has been shown to deter crimes is a high likelihood of being caught. We also need to greatly reduce the time between arrest and trial. Let's put our resources where they may actually be effective.
Bruce F. Simpson, Ottawa