Tough bill won't reduce crime Arbitrary `three strikes you're out' proposal will prove costly for taxpayers, says Louise Botham Oct. 18, 2006. 01:00 AM
One has to ask what the real purpose is behind the Harper government's legislative initiative to amend the Criminal Code as it relates to dangerous offenders.
Contrary to its assertion, violent crime is not increasing in Canada.
We already have legislation in place to designate someone a dangerous offender, where the sentencing judge is satisfied that the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or mental well-being of other persons.
Currently, the Crown does not have to wait for two prior convictions to make such an application.
Justice Minister Vic Toews tabled the legislation in the House of Commons yesterday.
There are three ways that a person can be designated a dangerous offender:
# Upon conviction for a serious personal injury offence where there has been a pattern of behaviour such that it is likely that there will be a risk of future harm.
# Where the circumstances of the offence are such to compel the conclusion that the offender is likely to cause similar harm in the future.
# Alternatively, where an offender has by his conduct in any sexual matter shown a failure to control his sexual impulses and it's felt that it's likely that he would do so again.
Dangerous offender applications are brought on a regular basis in this province and throughout the country when dealing with high-risk offenders.
Our courts and our prosecutors are well able to assess when such applications and designations are appropriate.
The notion of "three strikes and you're out" legislation was first introduced in the United States.
Except for the superficial attraction of this baseball analogy, what is the rational connection between three convictions and the decision to imprison someone for the rest of their lives? Why not two convictions, or five?
Since 1993, numerous studies have considered the effectiveness of the "three strikes legislation" in reducing crime in the United States. Almost without exception, none supports the proposition that harsher sentences will reduce crime rates.
Since the majority of violent offences occur impulsively, often coupled with the use of drugs or alcohol, it's unlikely that a consideration of possible consequences will deter someone's behaviour.
Canada's criminal courts are already overcrowded.
Legislation forcing a person convicted of their third serious violent offence to prove to a judge that they should not be declared a dangerous offender will necessitate lengthy and complicated sentencing hearings.
More cases will go to trial, given the possible penalty after conviction.
Not only will the legislation introduced by the Harper government fail to reduce violent crime, it will also cost the Canadian taxpayer.
There will be a hearing for every person designated a dangerous defender who now has to prove why he shouldn't be so designated..
That hearing will be lengthy, it will require a lawyer, likely expert witnesses and those costs more often than not will be absorbed by the provincial legal aid system.
Across Canada, legal-aid programs presently lack the financial resources to meet the existing demands put upon them.
Either the government will have to increase funding to legal aid for these cases or the ability of other persons to access legal aid will be reduced.
This will mean fewer parents able to get lawyers to assist in child custody cases. Legal aid clinics which help the poor will be restricted in the services they can offer.
Other accused persons, perhaps facing less serious charges, will not get a lawyer and will have to represent themselves.
Our federal penitentiaries are already crowded.
It costs more than $100,000 a year to house a federal inmate in a maximum security institution.
The number of offenders caught by this new legislation are going to have to serve their life sentences somewhere, meaning the construction of more penitentiaries and the hiring of more guards.
These costs will be borne by the taxpayer, either through increased taxes or by reduced services in other areas.
If, as this government has pledged, there will be no increase in taxes to cover the costs of this legislation, then there will have to be reduced expenditure in other areas; maybe education or health care.
For a government that prides itself on being fiscally responsible, one has to wonder why it would introduce legislation that will increase public spending but will have no effect on reducing crime.
Louise Botham is president of the 1,000-member Ontario Criminal Lawyers' Association.
Louise Botham is president of the 1,000-member Ontario Criminal Lawyers' Association.
No comments:
Post a Comment