_svg.png){kind=small}
Sun, August 12, 2007
It's the judges, stupid, not the laws
Tougher sentences, not handgun bans, are the best way to fight crime
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN
The way to give Canadians the justice system they want, rather than the one they have, is simple. Judges must start giving violent criminals substantially longer sentences than they do now. We don't need new laws or other distractions.
The maximum sentences our Criminal Code provides for murder, manslaughter, rape, gun crimes, assault with a weapon and the sexual abuse of children are long enough.
The problem is judges rarely use them, and even then, the sentences they do hand down are eviscerated by parole.
How we got into this mess isn't complicated. Back in the early 1970s federal politicians, starting with the Liberals but continuing through Conservative administrations, decided that rehabilitating criminals was more important than protecting society. (The third principle of sentencing, deterrence, was also undermined by this.)
For example, in a 1971 speech to Parliament, then Liberal solicitor-general Jean-Pierre Goyer, complained about the high costs of keeping criminals incarcerated, adding: "The present situation results from the fact that (the) protection of society has received more emphasis than the rehabilitation of inmates. Consequently, we have decided from now on to stress the rehabilitation of offenders, rather than the protection of society."
A generation later, this incredibly naive policy, especially given how underfunded and thus overcrowded our courts and prisons are -- were it not for plea-bargaining the entire structure would collapse -- is embedded in the DNA of most federal and provincial politicians. Specifically, the majority who are Liberal, Bloc, NDP, or affiliated with their provincial wings. Even among Conservatives, Red Tories tend to be soft on crime.
NOT SURPRISING
Given that politicians ultimately decide who is appointed a judge, it's hardly surprising many judges, particularly those drawn from the ranks of defence lawyers -- who support soft sentencing and easy parole for obvious reasons -- have the same lenient views as our political class. Stating the problem is easy. Fixing it, hard.
Whenever Prime Minister Stephen Harper makes the obvious point that the system is soft on crime, hysteria erupts from senior judges, opposition politicians, liberal media, academics and prisoners' rights groups.
Wild allegations are made that the "independence" of the judiciary is under attack.
Of course, this is absurd. It's not judges who are under siege but the law-abiding majority, especially those living in crime-ridden communities.
That's because the system releases violent criminals back into them over and over again, often before the police have finished the paperwork on the latest batch of crimes they're accused of committing.
The Liberals, who appointed Liberal judges when they were in power, now hypocritically denounce the Conservatives for trying to appoint Conservative ones. What we need aren't Conservative judges, or Liberal judges, but competent, no-nonsense judges.
To be fair, there are many such judges. But because of the politicized way we appoint them, they're more often an accident of the system than a product of it.
PROPOSED BILL
Recently, Ontario Conservative leader John Tory proposed a sensible bill to gather information on such issues as how long it takes to bring cases to trial, the results of plea bargaining and the number of bail violations. Why? Because in order to fix something, you need to know how and where it's breaking down.
But based on the response of Ontario's Liberal Attorney General Michael Bryant, you would have thought Tory was calling for flogging judges in the public square.
Bryant warned Tory's proposals would put unfair pressure on judges and crown attorneys, eroding their, you guessed it, independence.
MIND BOGGLING
How Bryant makes the astounding leap from gathering statistics to intimidating judges is anyone's guess. And why shouldn't taxpayers have this information as a matter of right?
Then again, Bryant thinks you can fight gun crime by "banning" handguns.
So, let's end with a question to him.
Mr. Bryant, since, unlike Americans, we don't elect judges and since by your lights our politicians are being irresponsible if they speak out, even mildly, against the status quo, what should Canadians do if they feel the justice system no longer represents their interests? Wear one of your little buttons calling for a handgun ban?