Hang 'Em High and Let 'Em Swing

Despite some pretty compelling evidence to the contrary, the Conservatives press ahead with their "tough-on-crime" agenda.

Coming out in defence of Conservative legislation that would toughen sentencing rules and expand the prison system in spite of falling crime rates, Sun Media’s Lorrie Goldstein attempts to explain why “the crime rate has virtually nothing to do with the need, or lack of it, for more prisons.” Sounds wacky, and this idea only makes sense if you believe that the most important function of prisons is to satisfy victims’ sense of justice, rather than to deter crime. Yes, Goldstein says, there are fewer crimes being committed but that doesn’t mean people who do commit crimes should get off easy. “Is a rape victim supposed to be comforted by a slight drop in the crime rate, if her attacker, sentenced to nine years, can be out on parole in three and on unescorted passes in 18 months?” he asks.

In The Mark, Megan McLemore makes a convincing case that mandatory minimum sentences, especially for drug crimes, have failed miserably in the U.S. and as such we shouldn’t be instituting them here. She cites a piece of 2010 U.S. legislation that repealed aspects of the “War On Drugs,” and said, “mass incarceration of illegal drug users has not curtailed illegal drug usage” in the U.S. and has resulted in “disproportionate impacts on minority communities.” It also costs a lot. The Conservatives appear determined to make exactly the same mistake the U.S. government did, which was to confuse a public relations campaign with policies that would actually reduce crime.

The Globe and Mail editorial board also comes out swinging against minimum sentences for drug crimes: “Nearly half the country disregards the law on marijuana use, according to the government's own statistics. This should tell the government there is no appetite for stiffer penalties.” Not only do Canadians not want these reforms, says the Globe, the government has unacceptably refused to release figures saying how much they will cost to implement, which is pretty strange for a party that prides itself on fiscal accountability. “Billions are at stake for an unclear social purpose,” the Globe concludes.