I can think of many more enjoyable ways to spend an afternoon than reading the federal government's tackling violent crime bill (C-2): going to the dentist, filing income taxes or cleaning the floors with a toothbrush.

Nevertheless, the Conservative law and order agenda is not getting the attention it deserves, given the overall opposition fear of triggering an election. It contains a plethora of proposed criminal justice amendments, including provisions relating to stricter bail and escalating mandatory prison sentences for those who commit, or are alleged to have committed, gun crimes.

As a downtown Torontonian, I am as aware as my fellow citizens that we have a gun crime problem. But one has to wonder whether tacking on a few extra mandatory years of imprisonment has any deterrent value.

Do criminals really sit around debating their potential sentence and then decide to commit a crime or not? Criminologists frequently point to enforcement working — meaning the offender's perception of the likelihood of getting caught — but that criminals rarely have any real idea of their potential sentence.

At least it keeps them off the streets a few years longer though, right?

But Canada already locks up its citizens at an alarming rate: according to the Elizabeth Fry Society, in 2000 Canada imprisoned its population at a rate of 118 per 100,000, compared to a European average of 84 per 100,000.

The proposed mandatory minimums (some of which were already in the Criminal Code, just shorter) requiring judges to impose incarceration for a set period of time, remove judicial discretion in dealing with individual offenders and their circumstances. Judges and juries are the triers of fact, not Parliament.

Is justice without context justice? One might ask this question particularly given the soci-economic parameters within which gun crime has become an issue in Toronto, for example. There is little doubt that these proposed amendments would have a disproportionate impact on poor communities.

One thing is certain: an increase in mandatory minimums means more prisoners and more prisons at the expense of the Canadian public. In the United States, mandatory minimum sentencing led to a dramatic increase in the numbers of incarcerated, and accordingly, in costs related to prisons.

According to Correctional Service Canada (CSC), in 2005-2006, it cost the federal government (or you and I) $88,067 to maintain a federal offender in an institution; $113,645 to maintain a federal offender in maximum security and $170,684 to maintain a female offender in federal custody.

What about the cost of platform?

The Conservatives have been less than forthcoming with projected costs associated with their criminal justice platform. And they could express their stridency on gun crime to the United States, given the number of guns coming across the border.

With respect to tightening up the granting of bail, particularly for those accused of gun crime, a key point has conveniently been overlooked. Accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty (it's a constitutional right after all) regardless of what they are charged with, and we should be wary of denying bail as a reactionary measure.

Tightening bail provisions plays well with the public; it has been in the media limelight of late. Consider the coverage of the granting of bail to several accused charged in the Boxing Day shooting death of Jane Creba in Toronto.

Simultaneously there is a Charter protected right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. Not to mention the additional cost of detaining those accused waiting for their hearing with the court system in many provinces already thoroughly choked.

This phenomenon was duly noted by Justice Brian Trafford of the Ontario Superior Court in a judgment issued in October 2006. In sentencing a young woman convicted of gun and drug offences, he warned that the "moral outrage" generated by crimes such as the Boxing Day shooting shouldn't be allowed to lead to excessive sentences.

"Her inherent worth and dignity," he said, speaking of the defendant, "is not to be arbitrarily sacrificed on the altar of public outrage."

Yet the altar of public outrage makes an excellent podium from which to launch law and order platforms and win votes.

The federal 2006 budget provides $20 million, over two years, for crime prevention, targeting youth crime with a focus on guns, gangs, and drugs, and supporting community-based prevention and intervention projects, aimed at youth at risk.

In contrast, according to CSC, the annual cost of federal corrections alone (many offenders end up in provincial institutions) was estimated to be $1.87 billion for 2007-08. That is a fairly steep tab, even prior to factoring in social costs and the push for prison privatization, further ignited by prison expansion.

In that regard, let's hope the opposition forces the Conservatives to unload the tackling violent crime bill before it gets voted into law for political rather than principled reasons.

Letters

In a recent poll in BC of public perceptions of the effectiveness of the courts in sentencing criminals, over 87 percent of respondents said the courts were doing an unsatisfactory or poor job.

People are sick and tired of seeing criminals literally "getting away with murder" (Karla Homolka for instance) while habitual car thieves are out on bail and stealing again within hours of capture.

In BC, it has been noted in the press lately, that the more crimes a drug addict commits, the less time he/she serves on each new conviction.

The public is simply fed up with this sort of pattern.

It would make sense to many to incarcerate fewer non-violent criminals and require "restorative justice" (paying back their victims or communities in some fashion), while sending a message to gangs, drug dealers, and violent attackers, that they will actually be sorry they did it, once the justice system has dealt with them.

Letters

Michelle Mann may be correct with her statistics on the relatively high rate of prison incarcerations in Canada as compared to Europe. What she fails to mention is the simple fact that parole (with exceedingly few exceptions) is virtually universal after prisoners has served 2/3 of their sentences, and (again with very few exceptions) very often granted after 1/3 of the sentence has been served. A prisoner can expect to be out on day pariole after 1/6 of the sentence.

Add to this the 2 for 1 time allocation given to time spent in remand, then throw in the type of remarkably comfortable accomodation found in minimum security establishments so favoured by Corrections Canada because of the lower cost involved. (Recall that it was only public outcry that prevented Colin Thatcher from bringing his horse available for recreational riding when in 'prison' in BC.)

The overwhelming public perception or impression is of 'coddling of prisoners' in keeping with the 'rehabilitation, not punishment' philosophy of prisoners advocated by a former head of Corrections Canada of whom it was often said 'he never met a prisoner that he didn't like.'

Small wonder that the Canadian general public is very much in favour of any kind of action that will result in people convicted of serious crimes spending some serious time in grim prisons. We are talking about people who have utterly ruined the lives of their victims. What is wrong with doing the same to them?

– Sandy Robertson | Ottawa

Thank you, Michelle Mann. I am troubled, too, about governments and societies that are more willing to spend to punish (even without proof of its efficacy) than spend to help.

Anecdotal reports of people who 'get away with murder' and the righteous cries of politicians sniffing at a majority are no substitute for science-based analysis. And that analysis tells us that we need fewer rather than more people incarcerated.

What I want from my leaders is to reduce the prison population during their mandate.

– Douglas Gifford | Gananoque, Ont.