Getting tough on criminals could prove tough and costly

Thus far, only two crime bills have cleared various proposals to use tougher sentences as a tool to combat crime. They may prove both costly and in some cases unconstitutional.

Worse yet, they may not work.

The costliness should be obvious to anyone who examines the proposals. New mandatory minimum sentences for some crimes and increasing the existing minimums will inevitably lead to overcrowding of our federal prisons (penitentiaries), while removal of the option of conditional sentences for all crimes involving elements of violence will do the same thing for provincial jails. The result will be a need to build new prisons and hire a lot more prison guards.

An analysis of the federal Conservatives' campaign platform in last January's election that was obtained by the Toronto Star through the federal access-to-information law paints a pretty bleak picture.

Prepared by Correction Services Canada's strategic policy division and disclosed in the Star recently, the analysis includes a prediction of huge increases in the prison population, particularly if the government goes ahead with a "three-strikes law" under which anyone who commits three crimes of violence would automatically face a hearing into whether he or she should be declared a dangerous offender and locked up indefinitely.

The analysis concluded that minimum sentences don't have a deterrent effect and could lead to cutbacks in the funding of social programs aimed at preventing crime.

The three-strikes law is also seen as hitting hardest our aboriginals, who already constitute the most frequently incarcerated sector of our population.

Dated Jan. 24, 2006 the document outlined "considerations" for the new government on each of its proposed policies, as well as advice on the "direction/way forward." The two provide tougher penalties for street racing and relatively mild restrictions on conditional sentencing or "house arrest." The other promised measures are either stalled or yet to be introduced.

On the mandatory minimum sentences which the Conservatives want for gun- and gang-related crime and serious drug offences, and for crimes committed while on parole or by repeat offenders, the bureaucrats warned that research has shown they "do not have a deterrent or educative effect."

As for a promise to repeal statutory release - the legal right to early release for well behaved federal prisoners who've served two-thirds of their sentences - the proposal is seen as having a huge impact on prison populations. Two-thirds of all federal prisoners released in 2004-05 were given statutory releases, and in the previous five years, only 3% of offenders out on statutory release saw their freedom revoked "for a violent offence."

The biggest advantage of the early release is that it lets parole authorities supervise the inmate's re-entry into the community.

The document also cites "credible research" as showing that longer sentences do not contribute to public safety and may actually increase the risk of recidivism.

As for Tory promises to kill the Criminal Code's "faint hope" clause, which allows killers on life sentences to seek a jury's recommendation for early parole after they've spent 15 years in jail, the document notes most of those eligible don't bother to apply. And of those who have ultimately won parole, few have been returned to custody.

As it turned out, the combined Liberal, Bloc Québécois and New Democratic opposition succeeded in substantially amending the government bill on the subject, and a watered-down version passed the Commons and Senate.

There seems little doubt that harsh sentences routinely imposed in the U.S. have done little more than swell jail populations. On the other hand, there's equally little doubt that there is a lot less violent crime in Scandinavia and other parts of Europe which jail a much smaller portion of their citizenry.

Perhaps what we need in Canada is a public inquiry into the best means of preventing crimes in general and particularly crimes of violence.

Since reducing jail populations will mean relief for our beleaguered taxpayers, we think improved training and equipment for our police forces and more public co-operation with volunteer organizations like Crime Stoppers and MADD are far more likely to succeed than U.S.-style jail sentences.