On The Limits of Victim-Centred Justice

 With Paul Bernardo’s name back in the news (this time over a move to a new prison cell), it’s time to spend a few moments discussing the role of victims of crime in the justice system, and how far it should really go. 

Criminals like Bernardo are notorious, and their names evoke strong emotional reactions in the public.  Of course, we should be aware of, and compassionate towards the victims and their families.  But, should the victims be “in the driver’s seat” around decisions regarding the punishment (and rehabilitation) of the offenders? 

I’m old enough to remember the wailing and gnashing of teeth that happened every so often when Clifford Olson would apply for parole. It was ridiculous then, and that was long before legal constructs like “dangerous offender” existed.  It was clear for Olson that this was a game - a way to get some attention in the news as the families of his victims were once again in front of cameras going on about the injustice of him even applying for parole. It was no secret that Olson was never going to get parole.

Likewise with Bernardo. He’s been locked up since 1995 - some 28 years at this point.  With a dangerous offender designation attached to his file, the odds of him ever getting parole are vanishingly close to zero. He isn’t getting out of custody, even if he applies for parole. 

Here we are today, with him being moved to a “medium security” prison, which really just means he has some freedom to move about within the walls of the prison.  He’s not getting out, nor is he eligible for the so-called “Club Fed” treatment of a minimum security institution.

The uproar here is wildly out of place, but predictably, the families are front and centre complaining about how they weren’t consulted, and how they’re being traumatized again.  Fair enough. There is nothing that will bring back their children.  But we shouldn’t confuse their distress with having an automatic right to dictate how the offender should be handled by Corrections Canada. 

The natural reaction they have is to demand that the offender be locked up and never allowed to see the light of day.  That isn’t justice, it’s revenge.  Yes, they have every right to be angry - but there is a careful line to walk between what they as victims may see as “just” and justice in the broader sense of the term. That is why complex structures like sentencing guidelines exist - what the victim may think is “just” and what is justice in the more complex context of society may well differ considerably. 

One of the points of the current system is to put a certain amount of distance between offenders and the victims.  This is important from a number of perspectives, including that of the victim. You need time and space in order to heal from whatever trauma has been inflicted upon you.  To be fair, healing is not a linear process, and you may need considerable amounts of professional help along the way.  

Should your concerns be heard when matters such as parole are discussed?  Yes, of course they should.  On the other hand, those opportunities should not be used as the sole criteria for deciding if a given offender should be granted parole.  

Similarly, we have to also recognize that there can be perverse consequences to ever harsher approaches to punishment (so-called “lock them up and throw away the key” thinking) - most offenders are serving finite sentences, and will be released when those sentences are completed.  If we deny parole in the name of assuaging the victim’s sense of being wronged, then the offender has fewer opportunities to develop the skills needed to function outside of the prison environment, and is more likely to re-offend upon release. Being vengeful here ends up meaning that someone else is likely as not to be harmed. 

That is the balance that the Corrections system has to walk - and it is far from an easy one. 

It might seem “easy” to say in the case of an offender like Bernardo, whose crimes are so egregious, that we should weld the door to his cell shut and leave it at that. But it isn’t that easy - Bernardo might be the worst possible offender, but even there, we have an obligation to ensure that punishment is proportional.

Where we fail in this balance of correction and punishment is that we do comparatively little for victims. Sure, the courts will talk about restitution, and fines can be levied, etc, but so what?  We don’t make a concerted effort to help the victims heal from the traumas that they have experienced.  Long term supports, including access to therapists, should be a part of the story here.  We need to spend as much effort on helping victims heal as we do on determining and administering punishment.

I’m not talking about “helping the victims understand the process” stuff here, I’m talking about processing trauma and learning to live with the reality of what has happened.  Far too often when notorious cases come up in the news, we get the victims on the news as well, and it’s quite clear that they are reliving the traumas of the past, and it’s worse than it was the first time around.  They need help too, and we aren’t providing it. 

Lastly, politicians and news media need to quit doing the “there’s blood in the water” routine with these cases.  Characters like Paul Bernardo make easy political fodder for politicians who want to seem like they’re “tough on crime”, but by making victims relive their trauma for political points, the politicians become part of the cycle of abuse that the victims experience. 

Bernardo’s name shouldn’t come so easily to our lips - he should be ignored, shunned, and ultimately forgotten - and our politicians and news media need to learn that lesson too. 

Tougher Laws = More Justice … Or Do They?

So, yesterday, a police officer in Ontario was killed.  Inevitably, we get cries of “this could have been prevented”, largely on the basis that one of the accused in the murder was out on bail awaiting trial for a series of charges.  

There’s a problem here:  the claim that this could have been prevented implies that the accused should have been in prison already. Yet, it’s relatively rare for a bench warrant to trigger a manhunt unless the charges are such that the accused is assumed to be a danger to the public - which most accused aren’t.  The police generally seem to sit back and wait for the person to turn up either of their own volition, or in a more mundane incident like a traffic stop. 

However, I’m not here to blame the police for not being aggressive in enforcing the bench warrant.  Just enforcing those could chew up a lot of resources that regional police forces probably don’t have. 

So what are the likely alternatives?  

Do Away With Bail? 

Doing away with bail - even in situations where the accused has convictions for similar charges in their past - could be enormously problematic. First, it violates the fundamental presumption of our legal system that the accused is innocent.  You are effectively “pre-punishing” someone by keeping them in remand in advance of any trial.  Generally we have sought not to do so because that detention is really for the “worst of the worst” cases. (Serial killers, extremely violent offenders, etc.)

Also, doing away with bail would have multiple knock-on effects in our justice system.  It would drive up the costs associated with Remand detention.  Keeping someone in remand is expensive, and taxpayers generally are going to be antsy about those costs. 

Given the often lengthy amount of time to get to trial, the time served could easily exceed any prison sentence that would be handed down.  That would almost inevitably result in a lot of people being released “for time already served” the day sentences are handed down. Not only does this miss the point of a justice system entirely, but it renders any notion of “punishment” academic at best. It also likely as not is going to turn the remand facilities into “criminal colleges”, whose graduates will go on to commit more crimes. (Remand is already bad enough for that effect due to a lack of rehabilitative programming)

Shorten The Time To Trial

Getting a criminal case to trial has been a problem for years now. To some extent, this is a matter of resourcing the justice system better.  The courts have also ruled that there is in fact a window of time that is allowable for a case coming to trial, after which the rights of the accused are deemed to have been violated. 

While improving the throughput of the courts is certainly a laudable objective, it’s not going to solve the problem of an accused offender going on to commit other offences while awaiting trial.  

Make Punishments Harsher? 

We could enact laws that impose ever harsher sentences, but to me that’s a failed experiment in 19th Century thinking. The argument that “harsher sentences are a deterrent” is simply false when you are looking at crime and punishment.  There is a validity to there being a significant penalty associated with criminal acts.  I’m good with that. We should never make the assumption that a particular punishment is in any way a deterrent to a criminal. 

In general doing so assumes that the prospective criminal is even thinking about the potential consequences of their actions at the time of committing (or even planning) an offence.  If that were the case, then there are entire countries where crime should be all but non-existent, and yet those countries continue to have the same, or worse, problems with crime.  

To be clear, I don't think there is a singular solution to the problem at hand.  We already know that our prison systems are overburdened, and vastly under-resourced when it comes to inmates and programming to help inmates become productive members of society post-sentence.  Far too much emphasis has been placed on punishment, not enough on rehabilitation, with the result that prisons in some ways become "Universities for Crime", and parolees their graduates. 

There is a need for society to address issues like systemic oppression, poverty, etc in an effort to reduce the long term negative consequences of those issues that so often lead to people committing offences.  

On the other side of the coin, while punishment needs to be punishment, we also have to look at how we prepare prisoners to function in the real world. Simply kicking them out at the end of their sentences with little or no supports is practically begging for them to return to the life of crime they knew before. That means making skills training, psychological supports, and safe housing available. 

In terms of prison structure and management, I think we should take a much closer look at the approaches used in countries like Sweden and Norway - with the caveat that those approaches will need to be adapted carefully for the kind of cultural mosaic that exists in Canada. Simply trying to pivot to it will fail. 

I think some of the ideas around the aboriginal concepts of restorative justice warrant further exploration, as do more flexible approaches to managing justice in ways that are culturally sensitive for the variety of cultural groups that live here today. 

None of this is easy, and all of it costs money. We need to stop acting like there are simple solutions to matters of crime and punishment. There aren't, and there never will be. 

An Act Of Aggression Is Still Wrong

I'm angry beyond words at this:  Transgender Woman's Jail Treatment Prompts Complaints

Baxter said Griffith was concerned about her safety and asked to be put into protective custody. 

Guards moved her to the protective custody section and placed her in a cell with two accused male sex offenders, Baxter said.

We've heard this kind of BS before, and not long ago.

Let me be abundantly clear on this:

Placing a transgender woman in a male prison facility is just plain wrong.  It puts the prisoner in a situation of unprecedented danger.  Placing such a prisoner in the same cell as two sex offenders is incomprehensibly stupid.

However, let's put the outrage over these two incidents to one side for a minute and reflect on the situations and what they tell us about our prison system.

First, I recognize that prisons are necessarily going to be fairly conservative in how they run.  There is a lot of ugly issues that emerge when incarcerating people, and a lot of those behind bars aren't going to be very happy about it.  So, fair enough, guards have a tough lot.

That said, they are still intelligent agents in their actions.  Under what circumstances does placing someone who is known to be transgender in a male prison cell make sense?  (especially in the case of Avery Edison, who was so obviously female in her presentation)  Under what circumstances does it make sense to put that person in the same cell as a pair of male sexual offenders?

It doesn't.  It cannot.  Unless one looks at it as an act of cruelty on the part of the guards.

The only way this makes sense is if the guards believe that their role is to mete out arbitrary punishment over and above what incarceration already is.

Where would they get this idea?  In part from the ongoing flood of US entertainment nonsense that streams across our borders, no doubt.  But also because the policy environment that they live in enables them to ape the kind of behaviours that are commonly shown in television programs.

I suspect strongly that the guards in the Katlynn Griffith case were doing it because they were in a position of power, and they decided it would be "fun" to see what happens.  In an era where our governments are becoming progressively more aggressive and punitive, the message to the prison apparatus is clear:  be nasty - we won't stop you.

When the police have been granted extraordinary powers of search and seizure at the roadside, and the laws are being overhauled to impose ever harsher penalties, it isn't hard to see how the mentality that is being pushed by our federal government is being reflected in the actions of the civil servants tasked with enacting the resulting laws and policies.

The fact that we still have policies in place that say we must incarcerate people based on what is dangling between their legs (or not), says a great deal about a government which has become all about not just punishing offenders, but extending that punishment in as many directions as possible.

Incarceration is the government removing an offender's (or accused's) liberty.  It does not, to my knowledge, suspend the right to Security of the Person.  Guards who place someone in a situation that is inherently dangerous are violating that fundamental right, and are failing to do their job - which is to keep prisoners from escaping on one side, but to keep the prisons relatively safe at the same time.

An Emerging Police State

For the last several years, I have been increasingly concerned that our governments at both the Federal and Provincial levels have been enabling an environment that is fundamentally hostile to civil society and individual freedoms.

In the wake of 9/11, we found the Canadian Federal Government using an obscure, and previously little used "Security Certificate" tool to detain people without trial, or even the opportunity to challenge the evidence against them.  At first, most people would have noticed relatively few changes except for a particularly obnoxious level of "security inspection" at the airport.

What started to alarm me more was the emergence of a series of "stop and seize" laws.  In BC, a speeding law was passed that enabled police to impound a speeder's car, followed by laws which impose an "administrative penalty" of license suspension and a fine for driving with a blood alcohol level between 0.05 and 0.08.  In Alberta, the province passed very similar laws, and topped it off with a "distracted driving" law that is so broad that you could effectively be charged with "distracted driving" for taking one hand off the steering wheel to shift gears. 

I'm not saying that the intent of those laws is bad.  Far from it.  None of those are subjects which I can argue are entirely bad things to be pursuing.  The problem that I have with all of those laws is that they impose harsh, if not unreasonable, penalties at roadside.  In effect, the police officer that pulls you over has the power not just to detain you, but to act as "judge, jury and executioner".  By the time that you get in front of a justice to plead your case, the penalty has already been partially exacted.  You might be able to argue away the fine in court, but the suspension of your license and the impounded vehicle have already been executed.

Personally, I don't interact with the police very often - once every decade or so at most do I get pulled over.  So, differences in attitudes are perhaps more marked to me than others.  The last time I interacted with a police officer on the street was a midday CheckStop last Christmas.  I spent over forty minutes stuck in a traffic jam created by this CheckStop, and then was subjected to a ten minute lecture from the officer.  To say that it felt like an exercise in intimidation is an understatement.

Previously, I had been pulled over a decade or so before on a minor traffic infraction.  The difference being the officer in that case was reasonably pleasant about it.  He was matter of fact and to the point.  No lectures, no attempt to intimidate.

The difference was marked enough to me to make me take notice.  Not only was the attitude different, even the way the CheckStop was structured was disturbing.  Previously, CheckStops had been a "sampling" exercise - about 60% of the cars passing by would be stopped.  This was _EVERYBODY_ getting stopped.  Along with that, the usual "No, Sir" response to the "have you had anything to drink?" question turned into a lengthy lecture for no apparently good reason.

I didn't think too much of it except that I had hit an officer in a bad mood until this past summer's shooting of a man on a Toronto bus.  In light of Vic Toews' "Spy On Everybody" bill, a series of "tough on crime" bills which emphasize punishment rather than prevention and rehabilitation.  These bills reflect a more serious problem, however.  When the government moves to precipitously to punish everybody in sight, the environment and assumptions under which the police must operate also change.

Suddenly, the terms of engagement have shifted from a duty to protect the public from criminal activity.  Broadly written laws create an environment where just about anybody could be accused of, and found guilty of something.  Heck, in Alberta, as I write this, it is theoretically a crime to suggest that Alberta Public Sector unions should go on strike.  The "distracted driving law" is so broadly written that taking your sunglasses off could result in a fine.  The consequence is that the police are being trained to see everybody as a potential criminal.

This is an unpleasant and ugly situation.  Harper has gone to enormous lengths to attack the fundamental freedoms that Canadians should enjoy, all in the name of supposed "safety".    The consequences for Canadians are ugly - it will cost us billions in prisons, and even more in terms of the psychological trauma that Canada will experience until this program of systematic oppression is dismantled.

Harper ... Linking Him To Ford

In the last two weeks, we've heard a lot about - and from - Rob Ford.  He's been, to say the least, prominent in the headlines - shocking most of the time, belligerent the rest.

Of some consideration though is the dead silence coming from the PMO where Rob Ford is concerned.  Harper has been silent on the matter, and aside from allowing Peter Mackay to wander in front of a live microphone trying to link Rob Ford's antics with Justin Trudeau's stance on legalizing marijuana.

A signature aspect of Harper's government has been the "tough on crime" business.  Throw more people in jail for longer.  Less latitude for any kind of criminal behaviour.  Yet, here we have a Mayor whose ties to the CPC are no surprise who is admitting that he has committed multiple crimes while in office.  The silence from Ottawa is almost deafening.

Considering how Harper has thrown so many people under his political bus lately, one wonders just how come Rob Ford is getting the kid gloves treatment.

Oh wait ... Harper isn't going to throw someone under the bus when he perceives that there is still a partisan gain to be had.

Welcome to the hypocrisy of the far right's "tough on crime" agenda.  It's fine to be "tough on crime" until it is one of their own...then it becomes something different.

Watch As Our Prison Costs Go Up

Travis Baumgartner was sentenced today.  He was sentenced to the equivalent of "40 years to life" for a bloody robbery that left three dead.

Previously, the standard sentence that Baumgartner would have received was "25 to life".  That was until the Harper Government passed a law which changed the sentencing rules for multiple murders.  Once a prisoner had served 25 years of their sentence in prison, they became eligible to apply for parole.  Baumgartner will be in his late sixties before he is eligible to apply for parole.

It seems to me that this more than a little bit pointless.  All it does is ensure that Baumgartner will be incarcerated for longer - at taxpayer expense.

This is somewhat pointless in my view.  If, after 25 years, Baumgartner is no threat to society, what is to be gained by incarcerating him for another fifteen years?  Precious little.  If he is a murderer as appalling as Clifford Olson or Paul Bernardo, then the parole evaluation should identify that and deny parole.

The notion of justice is complex and subtle.  It is a balance between rehabilitation and punishment.  Incarceration is, in our legal system, a legitimate form of punishment.  To make incarceration so severe that a prisoner has very little chance of being released before they are truly aged serves little real purpose.  What incentive is there for Baumgartner to put in the work to rehabilitate himself?  Precious little at this point.

Victim's rights groups bleat incessantly when an offender applies for parole - especially when that offender has been as high profile as Clifford Olson was.  They complain that even having a parole hearing is some kind of violation of the victim.  Perhaps it is, but I don't think that's really the case.  These people more often than not have confused justice with punishment.  Nothing can undo what has been done.  The world doesn't work that way.  But there is little to be gained by locking someone up indefinitely.

I'm not arguing that Baumgartner doesn't deserve a stiff sentence.  Nor am I arguing that at 25 years he should be paroled automatically.  I simply do not believe that some kind of injustice has been done because he can apply for parole at 25 years.  Even if he is paroled at 25 years, he remains under supervision for the rest of his life.  That's a pretty short leash, in my opinion.  Does that mean that Baumgartner will commit no further crimes once released?  No guarantees there, but justice isn't about guarantees.  It is about appropriately balancing punishment with rehabilitation.  People are not something that you can just "throw away".

Along with mandatory minimum sentences, this is another piece of the Conservative "tough on crime" nonsense which does nothing for society except increasing the taxpayer bill for prisons.

Ask yourself this - would you rather spend money on incarcerating criminals or would you prefer to see those funds used for public education or health care?  The United States has already tried this experiment.  It is now a country with the greatest percentage of its population either incarcerated or under "supervised release" (aka Parole or probation).  States like California have been driven to the brink of bankruptcy by these laws and the heavy handed approach to sentencing that they demand.

And The Screws Tighten Further

As the Conservatives continue on their hardline "tough on crime" nonsense agenda, the next step unrolled in an announcement from Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq revealed new rules for managing medical marijuana:

Under the new regime, the government will no longer produce or distribute medical pot and medical marijuana users will no longer be allowed to grow the product at home. Instead, the government will allow patients to buy prescribed amounts only from licensed growers under strict conditions.

In previous versions of the regulations, pharmacies were to distribute the product just like other medications, provoking the anger of pharmacists who feared being robbed.

But the final version removes the pharmacists from the loop, forcing patients to rely on mail order for their medical marijuana. 

Once again, we see the government stepping in and not just regulating something, but instead putting up obstacles which are detrimental to the good that these programs actually do.

"While the courts have said that there must be reasonable access to a legal source of marijuana for medical purposes, we believe that this must be done in a controlled fashion in order to protect public safety," Aglukkaq said in a news release.

"These changes will strengthen the safety of Canadian communities while making sure patients can access what they need to treat serious illnesses."

 Of course, they wrap it in the cloak of "community safety", when there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that medical marijuana use has caused any community safety issues.  I will point out that any evidence the government may have is guaranteed to be purely anecdotal at this point, since they have ever so conveniently hamstrung the ability of Statistics Canada to gather reliable data.

There are two enormous questions that have not been addressed yet.  First is what are the criteria to become a "licensed marijuana grower"?  I'm going to put money on the rules being so strict that virtually nobody will be able to become one - not unlike what the government has done with the proposed rules around safe injection sites.

What the government has just done is push the use of marijuana to mitigate symptoms back underground.  The vast majority of users will not be willing to purchase the stuff via "mail order" models and will resort to the purchase of marijuana "off the street" simply because it is easier and more convenient - whatever the legal risks that may be associated with it.

There is nothing like a government which refuses to pay attention to available evidence and instead insists upon governing from ideology alone.

In Harper's Canada

... it's inquisitive voters out and fraudsters to the front row:

A Toronto businessman and self-described campaign volunteer who circulates in Conservative circles is facing a criminal charge for allegedly fraudulent credit and debit card withdrawals — a background that did not prevent him from sitting right behind the Harper family at a rally last week.

Snover Dhillon met with Tory MP Patrick Brown, of Barrie, Ont., at an event in the Punjab region of India in January and attended a Tory convention in Halifax a month later, appearing to violate bail conditions set in December that barred him from leaving Ontario.

Stephen Harper's campaign has come under fire for its strict vetting of rally attendees. The prime minister is also facing questions about how a former senior adviser, Bruce Carson, was able to work in his inner circle despite fraud convictions in the 1980s and 1990s and a bankruptcy in 1993.

Dhillon landed a plum seat in the second row of Harper's rally in Brampton, Ont., on Mar. 27, right behind Laureen Harper, her children Rachel and Ben, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, and local candidates.

In short, if you are an undecided voter and openly explore all of the voting options out there, you better not let the Harperites find out that you have been to a *gasp*- Liberal or *GASP* - NDP or *SHOCK* - Green party event, you could well find The Party ... and the RCMP ... have opened a file on you.

Meanwhile, we see the "Tough on Crime" party giving the red carpet treatment and plum patronage appointments to fraudsters.

All this from the party which ran on "more open and accountable government" and "getting tough on criminals" - the cognitive dissonance in their warroom must be positively crippling!

Tough On Crime? Not So Much ...

So, instead of actually walking the walk, we find that the HarperCon$ are busy hamstringing police:

The Harper government has once again delayed implementation of regulations that police say they need to quickly trace guns used in crimes.

The government quietly posted a notice last Tuesday -- one day before the firearms marking regulations were to have come into force -- disclosing that implementation has been postponed until Dec. 1, 2012.

This is the third time the Harper government has delayed the regulations, which were created by the Liberal government in 2004 and were supposed to go into effect in April of 2006.

The government has also deferred for another two years regulations governing the possession and use of firearms at gun shows.

I see ... so instead of doing something which would make it easier for police to do their jobs and actually create safer communities, the HarperCon$ are busy hamstringing them while trying to push through ever more extreme laws that will cost Canadians billions of dollars in the coming years.

The latest deferrals are being applauded by gun enthusiasts, who hope the regulations will be repeatedly put off until such time as Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives win a majority and can scrap them altogether.

Oh ... well, of course. Doesn't that make sense? They're busy pandering to their base again. While they busily try to court more votes in their quest for a majority government, the HarperCon$ are actually creating an environment where criminals have an easier time of things. Hmmm...whose votes are they really courting?

The Census Play Was Just Foreshadowing

If you thought that the HarperCon$ had sunk about as low as they could go with the census issue, guess again.

In handing the procedural reigns of government to John Baird, I think you will see a parliament whose level of dysfunction will reach new depths. Baird isn't exactly known as a conciliator or someone capable of negotiating compromise at the best of times. He's far better known as an agitator and destructive force - always ready to turn things back on the opposition.

To hazard a guess, I'd say you will see a much more hardline stance from the HarperCon$ in the next sitting of the house - one that they will need as they attempt to ram through legislation that will be damaging to Canada on all levels. The "get tough on crime" agenda is a load of absolute crap that Canada cannot afford, and in many ways will violate key tenets of our constitution on the way past.

Of course, this will not bother the ever increasing totalitarianism of the HarperCon$. They have already demonstrated a repeated disregard for facts and reality in their approach to governance many times since 2006. The most recent bit to emerge in their overbearing totalitarianism came from the PMO - when they criticized a play based on the case of one of the "Toronto 18".

I'm not going to comment on the play itself - that's almost irrelevant. The issue here is that someone in the PMO saw it as their role to comment on a play from a political stance. We already know that the HarperCon$ have intervened in funding decisions for political reasons before (e.g. the pride parade funding issues that got Diane Ablonczy in trouble earlier) This is deeply troubling because it shows us that this government thinks nothing of intervening in Canada's arts and culture scene when it finds something objectionable. This smacks of McArthyism or for that matter the behaviour of Stalinist USSR, where the government thinks that its role includes the right to dictate the cultural dialogue of the nation.

If our opposition doesn't wake up and start calling this stuff out - loudly - Canada is about to enter one of the darkest periods of its history.

We Can't Afford The Harper Con$ Criminal Agenda

When Canwest's writers are starting to twig to the dogmatic, ideologically bound Harper Con$ervatives agenda - and pointing out the problems with it - you know it's bad.

Why the Harper Conservatives would want to adopt such a tragically failed social and fiscal strategy beggars understanding.

"We don't govern on the basis of statistics," Nicholson told reporters Wednesday.

Of course not. Why pay attention to facts, to evidence, or to logic, if they don't support your pet ideological agenda?

If we want to understand the real costs of the HarperCon$ ideological agenda, we only need to look south of the border where various states have implemented the very policies that the Harper government is trying to force upon Canada:

The United States has spent two decades experimenting with the same "tough on crime" philosophy the Harper Conservatives now espouse. The results have been economically and socially disastrous.

In South Carolina, for example, the state adopted tough new "truth in sentencing" laws in the mid-1990s. From 1983 to 2008, spending on prisons went up 600 per cent, while the number of prisoners soared from 9,000 to almost 25,000.

In California, according to data from the Pew Center on the States, more than 755,000 people are either in prison or on parole; the state spends almost $10 billion US a year on corrections, helping to drive it into financial meltdown.

Over all, spending on corrections in America has jumped from $11 billion US 20 years ago to $50 billion US today. One out of every 100 adult Americans is in jail, and one in 31 is on probation or parole. As the respected conservative magazine The Economist put it last week, "Never in the civilized world have so many been locked up for so little."

It is truly a sad statement when they are willing to ignore the unmistakable fact that the crime rate in Canada has been dropping for most of the last two decades, and instead insist that there is a phantom "unreported crime" epidemic as justification for their agenda.

The Harper government is going to drive Canada into bankruptcy with a "tough on crime" policy that has enormous costs and virtually no real impact on the crime rate. Funny, for a party that has campaigned on "better governance", and "greater transparency", that they should be so wilfully blind to the realities of their own policies ... unless of course they were lying to the public - which would hardly come as a surprise.