Wednesday, December 07, 2005
How Come Nobody's Soft on Crime Anymore?
I am, I suppose, something of an anachronism. I am skeptical that there's any incremental deterrant value to adding an extra year to a prison sentence. I reject the philosophy that an offender's sentence is intended, in any way, for the benefit of the survivor (except insofar as incarceration makes re-offending very difficult logistically). I place as much emphasis on the civil liberties of those suspected of crimes as I do on the efficacy of police investigations. I have given money to the John Howard foundation. I am, in short, Soft on Crime, and I wear the label proudly. I'd like my vote in the federal election to reflect this particular aspect of my values. That's not going to be easy.
Quite a number of bills - some government bills, some private member bills - designed to stiffen various sorts of criminal penalties came before the last Parliament. Here's a summary:
Bill C-2
Moved by: Irwin Cotler (Justice Minister and Attorney-General)
Effect: This bill increased the maximum penalties for child sex offenses and for child abandonment and failng to provide the necessities of life. It also created new offenses, and broadened the definition of "dependent relationship" for the purposes of sentencing (which had the effect for further stiffening penalties). It also tightened the definition of what constitutes child pornography.
Result: This bill passed with unananimous support from the Liberal, New Democrat, and Bloc caucuses. The Conservatives voted against, on the grounds that the penalties prescribed in the bill were too light.
Bill C-13
Moved by: Irwin Cotler (Justice Minister and Attorney-General)
Effect: This bill broadened the number of offenses for which criminals would be added to the DNA data bank.
Result: This bill passed with unanimous support from the Liberal, New Democrat, and Bloc caucuses. The Conservatives voted against, on the grounds that the bill didn't do enough to broaden the criteria.
Bill C-53
Moved by: Irwin Cotler (Justince Minister and Attorney-General)
Effect: This bill placed the burden of proof on people committed of organized crime and drug offenses to demonstrate that their property was not acquired from the proceeds of crime. If they fail to meet this burden of proof, the state can confiscate their property.
Result: This bill was passed unanimously.
Bill C-64
Moved by: Irwin Cotler (Justice Minister and Attorney-General)
Effect: This bill, inspired by Chuck Cadman and intended to fight car theft, made it an offense to obscure or obliterate a vehicle registration number, with violators being subject to prison terms of up to five years.
Result: This bill was passed with unanimous support from the Liberal, New Democrat, and Bloc caucuses. The Conservatives voted against, on the grounds that the bill didn't do enough to provide deterrance to car theft (among other reasons, it argued that the prison sentences were too light).
Bill C-65
Moved by: Irwin Cotler (Justice Minister and Attorney-General)
Effect: This bill, inspired by Chuck Cadman, made street racing an aggravating factor in reckless driving offenses.
Result: This bill was passed with unanimous support from the Liberal, New Democrat, and Bloc caucuses. The Conservatives voted against, on the grounds that the penalties prescribed for street racing were too light.
Bill C-215
Moved by: Daryl Kramp (Conservative)
Effect: This bill lengthens sentences for crimes in which a firearm was employed, such that, for example, a manslaughter sentence of twenty years would be lengthened to thirty-five years if it involved a firearm that was discharged, causing bodily harm.
Result: This bill was passed (with Speaker Peter Milliken casting the deciding vote) with the unanimous support of the Conservative and New Democrat caucuses and with a substantital minority of the Liberal caucus. The Bloc caucus voted unanimously against, on the basis that minimum sentences should be used sparingly (Bloc MP Richard Marceau, who gave the Bloc's speech on second reading, did note that there were occasions in which he thought that the use of minimum sentencing was appropriate).
Bill C-248
Moved by: Jay Hill (Conservative)
Effect: This bill imposed minimum sentences for drug-dealing within five hundred metres of a school.
Result: This bill was passed with the unanimous support of the Conservative, New Democrat, and Bloc caucuses, and with majority support of the Liberal caucus.
Bill C-275
Moved by: Richard Harris (Conservative)
Effect: This bill would have eliminated the maximum sentences on hit-and-run offences, and would have established minimum sentences of seven years if the victim dies and four years if the victim suffers bodily harm but survives. It would also have prohibited plea-bargaining for hit-and-run offenses, and eliminated the requirement that the perpetrator must have been seeking to escape criminal or civil prosecution in order for he/she to be found guilty of a hit-and-run offense.
Result: This bill was defeated, with the Conservatives in unanimous support of the bill and a handful of Liberal and New Democrat MPs doing so as well. The Bloc was unanimously in opposition to the bill, on the grounds that it did too much to fetter the discretion of individual judges.
Bill C-293
Moved by: Mark Warawa (Conservative)
Effect: This bill would have created minimum sentences for vehicle theft, with the length of the minimum sentences varying for first, second, and subsequent offences.
Result: This bill was defeated, with the Conservatives in unanimous support of the bill and a handful of Liberal and New Democrat MPs doing so as well. The Bloc was unanimously in opposition to the bill, on the grounds that it did too much to fetter the discretion of individual judges.
These bills are in addition to the literally dozens of sentence-enhancing bills, both government and private members, that didn't make it to first reading by reason of the government's defeat (and/or poor luck in the private member's bill lottery). Besides the much-vaunted marijuana-decriminalization bill (which, as it happens, also stiffened sentences for growing and trafficking in marijuana), there was not a single bill before the last Parliament designed to make sentences for any offense lighter.
How come nobody's soft on crime anymore?
|
I am, I suppose, something of an anachronism. I am skeptical that there's any incremental deterrant value to adding an extra year to a prison sentence. I reject the philosophy that an offender's sentence is intended, in any way, for the benefit of the survivor (except insofar as incarceration makes re-offending very difficult logistically). I place as much emphasis on the civil liberties of those suspected of crimes as I do on the efficacy of police investigations. I have given money to the John Howard foundation. I am, in short, Soft on Crime, and I wear the label proudly. I'd like my vote in the federal election to reflect this particular aspect of my values. That's not going to be easy.
Quite a number of bills - some government bills, some private member bills - designed to stiffen various sorts of criminal penalties came before the last Parliament. Here's a summary:
Bill C-2
Moved by: Irwin Cotler (Justice Minister and Attorney-General)
Effect: This bill increased the maximum penalties for child sex offenses and for child abandonment and failng to provide the necessities of life. It also created new offenses, and broadened the definition of "dependent relationship" for the purposes of sentencing (which had the effect for further stiffening penalties). It also tightened the definition of what constitutes child pornography.
Result: This bill passed with unananimous support from the Liberal, New Democrat, and Bloc caucuses. The Conservatives voted against, on the grounds that the penalties prescribed in the bill were too light.
Bill C-13
Moved by: Irwin Cotler (Justice Minister and Attorney-General)
Effect: This bill broadened the number of offenses for which criminals would be added to the DNA data bank.
Result: This bill passed with unanimous support from the Liberal, New Democrat, and Bloc caucuses. The Conservatives voted against, on the grounds that the bill didn't do enough to broaden the criteria.
Bill C-53
Moved by: Irwin Cotler (Justince Minister and Attorney-General)
Effect: This bill placed the burden of proof on people committed of organized crime and drug offenses to demonstrate that their property was not acquired from the proceeds of crime. If they fail to meet this burden of proof, the state can confiscate their property.
Result: This bill was passed unanimously.
Bill C-64
Moved by: Irwin Cotler (Justice Minister and Attorney-General)
Effect: This bill, inspired by Chuck Cadman and intended to fight car theft, made it an offense to obscure or obliterate a vehicle registration number, with violators being subject to prison terms of up to five years.
Result: This bill was passed with unanimous support from the Liberal, New Democrat, and Bloc caucuses. The Conservatives voted against, on the grounds that the bill didn't do enough to provide deterrance to car theft (among other reasons, it argued that the prison sentences were too light).
Bill C-65
Moved by: Irwin Cotler (Justice Minister and Attorney-General)
Effect: This bill, inspired by Chuck Cadman, made street racing an aggravating factor in reckless driving offenses.
Result: This bill was passed with unanimous support from the Liberal, New Democrat, and Bloc caucuses. The Conservatives voted against, on the grounds that the penalties prescribed for street racing were too light.
Bill C-215
Moved by: Daryl Kramp (Conservative)
Effect: This bill lengthens sentences for crimes in which a firearm was employed, such that, for example, a manslaughter sentence of twenty years would be lengthened to thirty-five years if it involved a firearm that was discharged, causing bodily harm.
Result: This bill was passed (with Speaker Peter Milliken casting the deciding vote) with the unanimous support of the Conservative and New Democrat caucuses and with a substantital minority of the Liberal caucus. The Bloc caucus voted unanimously against, on the basis that minimum sentences should be used sparingly (Bloc MP Richard Marceau, who gave the Bloc's speech on second reading, did note that there were occasions in which he thought that the use of minimum sentencing was appropriate).
Bill C-248
Moved by: Jay Hill (Conservative)
Effect: This bill imposed minimum sentences for drug-dealing within five hundred metres of a school.
Result: This bill was passed with the unanimous support of the Conservative, New Democrat, and Bloc caucuses, and with majority support of the Liberal caucus.
Bill C-275
Moved by: Richard Harris (Conservative)
Effect: This bill would have eliminated the maximum sentences on hit-and-run offences, and would have established minimum sentences of seven years if the victim dies and four years if the victim suffers bodily harm but survives. It would also have prohibited plea-bargaining for hit-and-run offenses, and eliminated the requirement that the perpetrator must have been seeking to escape criminal or civil prosecution in order for he/she to be found guilty of a hit-and-run offense.
Result: This bill was defeated, with the Conservatives in unanimous support of the bill and a handful of Liberal and New Democrat MPs doing so as well. The Bloc was unanimously in opposition to the bill, on the grounds that it did too much to fetter the discretion of individual judges.
Bill C-293
Moved by: Mark Warawa (Conservative)
Effect: This bill would have created minimum sentences for vehicle theft, with the length of the minimum sentences varying for first, second, and subsequent offences.
Result: This bill was defeated, with the Conservatives in unanimous support of the bill and a handful of Liberal and New Democrat MPs doing so as well. The Bloc was unanimously in opposition to the bill, on the grounds that it did too much to fetter the discretion of individual judges.
These bills are in addition to the literally dozens of sentence-enhancing bills, both government and private members, that didn't make it to first reading by reason of the government's defeat (and/or poor luck in the private member's bill lottery). Besides the much-vaunted marijuana-decriminalization bill (which, as it happens, also stiffened sentences for growing and trafficking in marijuana), there was not a single bill before the last Parliament designed to make sentences for any offense lighter.
How come nobody's soft on crime anymore?
