Mandatory sentences solve nothing
WORTH REPEATING
It’s no surprise that, in the wake of the horrible events of March 3 that claimed the lives of four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe, Alta., there would be demands for get- tough sentencing. And it also should come as no surprise that Conservative MPs from Alberta have picked up the call for minimum sentencing for anyone convicted of running a grow op, considering that James Roszko, the man who took those lives, had some 283 marijuana plants growing in a Quonset on his farm.
It is surprising, however, that Manitoba’s NDP Attorney-General Gord Mackintosh also tapped into this reactionary solution by demanding last week that Ottawa impose minimum sentences to deter people from smuggling guns across the border. One hopes that federal lawmakers will not be so easily swayed by the emotional call from victims’ families to enact legislation that neither will make us safer nor deliver superior justice. Canada already has in place a number of minimum sentence requirements for crimes ranging from importing narcotics, to using a firearm to commit an offence, to murder. In almost every case, the sentences have been challenged because of special circumstances that could not have been foreseen by parliamentarians who enacted them.
In fact, Roszko could be a poster boy for the silliness of demanding minimum sentences. A violent man who was constantly in conflict with the law, disavowed by his family and completely unconcerned with the value of any life including his own, he killed himself rather than be arrested. Had there been a mandatory two- year minimum sentence for running his grow op, he would not have been punished more. And if the production, distribution and consumption of marijuana were legal, his murders would have instead been committed over stolen car parts. But it is the exception on the other end of the spectrum that proves the absurdity of mandatory sentences.
Robert Latimer, who has served only half of his mandatory sentence for what jurors clearly felt was a crime of compassion, is to languish in jail for at least another five years. Had the judge and jury who listened to all the evidence been free to decide his fate, Latimer would have been back as a productive member of society four years ago rather than taking up space in one of Her Majesty’s facilities.
Similarly, had the bullet travelled a few inches in another direction, an Ontario police officer who shot and wounded a fleeing suspect last year could have been facing a manslaughter charge that carries a mandatory sentence of four years, because his offence was committed with a firearm. Instead he was convicted of “ discharging a firearm with the intent to cause harm.” Canada has among the highest rates of incarceration in the developed world, indicating that our judges already are sensitive to the public demand for tougher sentences. They also have recognized, however, that exceptional situations require flexibility in sentencing.
Better they decide than opportunistic politicians. This is an edited version of an editorial that appeared in the StarPhoenix, Saskatoon.