Local Stations 
 

Pick your location

All CTV Stations

 

Related TV Shows

Gossip Girl

Gossip Girl

Gossip Girl

Gossip Girl

Gossip Girl

CTV News | Expert doubts mandatory sentences effective

Top Stories -   

News Sections

Canada

World

Entertainment

Sports

Business

Sci-Tech

Health

Politics

Weather

News Programs

CTV National News with Lloyd Robertson

Canada AM

W5

Features

Autos

Consumer

Browse:

Video

Galleries

MyNews

News Team Bios

Sign up for Alerts, Mednews Express, weather and more

Home

Schedule

Home : Top Stories : Expert doubts mandatory sentences effective

Expert doubts mandatory sentences effective

Viewer

CTV News Video

CTV British Columbia: Correspondents report
Power Play: MPs and lawyers debate the issue of how to prevent and punish crime in Canada

Watch: See all Videos in the Player

Font-size:      Share  Print  Comments(75)

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Wed. Feb. 25 2009 11:02 PM ET

Mandatory minimum prison sentences will do little to deter the gang activity plaguing cities across Canada, says a prominent criminal lawyer on the eve of a federal announcement of new anti-crime legislation.

The new bill, which Prime Minister Stephen Harper will announce in B.C. on Thursday, will reportedly contain mandatory minimum prison sentences for drive-by shootings and some serious drug offences.

It is also expected to include an automatic first-degree murder charge for gang-related killings.

However, Julian Falconer said Wednesday that mandatory minimum prison sentences are a misallocation of public funds.

"The truth of the matter is that there is very little, or any, criminological data that suggests they work," Falconer said during an interview on CTV's Power Play.

"The reality is that the only people that generally respond to this form of deterrence are your more opportunistic -- what one would call less-organized -- offenders. For your highly-organized offenders, your hardened thugs, there is no evidence that that form of deterrence works."

The new legislation comes at a time when B.C.'s Lower Mainland is experiencing a spike in gang activity. More than a dozen shootings in the past few weeks have led to a handful of deaths.

Oddly, while Harper visits the West Coast to speak about the upcoming legislation, two B.C. cabinet ministers will travel to Ottawa to lobby for tougher anti-gang laws.

Attorney General Wally Oppal and Solicitor General John van Dongen will meet with federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson on Thursday to request tougher sentencing, disclosure and surveillance laws to fight gang activity.

Enforcement or punishment?

While the federal opposition parties said Wednesday they would likely support the new legislation, opposition MPs called for the government to do more to prevent crime.

"By all means punish the thugs that are wreaking havoc in communities causing death," NDP MP Olivia Chow said on Power Play. "But what the New Democrats want is to catch them before they kill and maim. Aside from punishment we have to do the enforcement."

Chow said the 2,500 new police officers the federal government promised for municipalities across the country have yet to be hired.

But Dave MacKenzie, parliamentary secretary the public safety minister, responded by saying that the RCMP has hired 1,600 new constables, more than the target of 1,000 new hires.

"This (gang activity) is not isolated to one part of the country," MacKenzie said. "It's major stuff. I think the legislation we're bringing forward will go a long way to helping the police and the prosecutors and the judges in their job."

According to Falconer, more money needs to be spent on prison rehabilitation and reintegration services, as well as programs to keep youth out of gangs.

"I'd ask the question, when we talk about gangs and gang activity, we have to appreciate that many of the individuals that make up these gangs are youth that are being recruited from the streets," Falconer said. "Disenchanted youth, and there are ways of trying to re-integrate and bring people back in the fold that aren't completely lost."

With files from The Canadian Press

Comments are now closed for this story

Dane
said
0 0

Mandatory Minimum Sentences do work!

More Criminals in Jail=Less criminals outside of jail= less crime.


island girl
said
0 0

I'm tired of the lame argument that prison doesn't lessen crime. The point is, when they are in prison they can't commit further crimes so you are protecting the public. It's false to say you don't have enough prison space. The majority of crimes are committed by repeat offenders and a minority of the total population. It wouldn't cost so much if we'd stop coddling them. Lengthy sentences with spartan living conditions are required. Rehabilitation is a foolish dream.


Ron J. - Alberta
said
0 0

Doing nothing doesn't work. Lengthy sentences are needed. At least when these thugs are in prison, they can't kill innocent bystanders with their gang lifestyle.

It takes an effort to get an education and make something of yourself. These fools are too lazy and want the easy money that drugs and crime brings them. Lengthy sentences are needed to that the consequence of this kind of lifestyle is just too high for them to want to pay, thereby discouraging others to follow this path.


Hunter
said
0 0

Even if it doesn't deter the "hardened" criminal, when caught they won't be able to commit crimes on the street when behind they are behind bars, thereby making the streets safer. We really need a Justice system with some teeth.


John L.
said
0 0

I've worked in the justice system for 25 years, and I've interviewed many gang members. They are in it because of the status it brings them. They like the power, and they like thrill of having others fear them. They get no such status anywhere else. It's not like they would ever be the next CEO of a large corporation. They mock the effort it takes to accomplish something like that. (Getting up at 7 a.m., putting in a long work day, etc)

Let me tell you, the only thing they fear is long sentences. Nothing else. They don't want to be held accountable for their behaviour which is why they love our current system that tolerates gang activity and keeps letting them out.

Minimum sentences will work, but only if they are long enough to out weigh the fun and status they get from gang life. These sentences must be at least 5 years or it will fail.


Dave in Surrey
said
0 0

The point is that when they get out, those who had limited contacts before have plenty of high end contacts upon leaving the system...

There is more than enough evidence that mandatory minimums do not work, do not justify the expense and do not lower crime rates...

We should have a vote, those who want lengthy prision terms can pay an additional 10% in taxes to cover the cost...


Tom in Calgary
said
0 0

Stiffer penalities may not stop gang activity, but it sure will stop that particular gang member. And has been mentioned a million times...social programs have been done and done and done for 40-50 years in this country and we still have criminals, we still have homeless people and we still have poverty. Yea right, lets spend yet MORE money on the bad guys "rehabilitation". That'll solve the gang problem...more social workers!

...

And you want want stimulus? Build enough jails to simply storehouse them for far longer periods. 40-50 year old "gang members" may have a bit of trouble getting back into it after 20-25 years for their murderous violence. Even gang members who haven't shot anyone should be looked up for 20 years since by being members they are accomplices.

Dean
said
0 0

How can someone call themselves an expert and suggest that a stiff mandatory isn't a deterrent. Should we reward criminals more than we do already? After all, it is called the "criminal justice" system. It should be the "victim's justice system" and actually work for the people who have been adversely affected by crime. What if we go back to the system whereby there are real penalties for crimes. Remember the "eye for an eye" system. There weren't a lot of repeat offenders in the stealing and murder or rapes categories I'm sure! How is that not effective? What is the deterrent to be if we don't have mandatory penalties? If there were real penalties, perhaps there would be less crime in the long run. It's not a police problem, it's judges not imposing decent penalties. Also, take a read of the constitution. Look at all of the "rights" criminals and illegals have in this country. It's ridiculous. Well Mr. Expert, what should we do?


Louis, Ottawa
said
0 0

Let us make sure that someone who is "disoriented" and "not completely lost" has a very bad experience as a result of their actions such that they will not want to relive those experiences again. They should be made to WANT rehabilitaion, BEG for it, as an alternative to their regular fare. They should EARN rehabilitation, it should not be forced on them. Force it and they will resist. Then, those who genuinely want a way out will find it, the rest can rot because they wont change.


R/H Ontario
said
0 0

Okay, what will work for killings is .... to hang them! Bring back the noose for murder that is positively proved in court. For sure they will not kill any more people. 1st degree murder deserves the NOOSE.As for all the gangs....! Catch them and DEPORT the ones that are here illegally, instantly.Too much time wasted in the courts. Also the 'Twice off for time spent' before the trial is a REAL crock. Do away with that.Judges need to get the laws stricter by lobbying parliament, in earnest.


B Vaughan
said
0 0

If your in jail for 10 years then you cannot commit crimes for 10 years. Pure and simple.....no PHD of Doctorate required to figure that out.


Herb
said
0 0

Going down an American-style criminal system is doomed to fail. They have the highest incarceration rate in the western world and still manage to have the most violent society in the world. Yes, seeing someone punished gives people a near "biblical" sense of an-eye-for-an-eye satisfaction, but it does not get at the cause of crime. A country with strong social programs will ultimately be safer than a heavily policed one.


Rick , Waterloo Region
said
0 0

Just what we need another expert to tell us that someone in jail is a bad thing or it will not work. Who gives a hoot....lock the criminals up...in fact build a jail in the North West Territories so they can chop ice for there sentence since that is as useful as they seem to be. I forgot about all the bleeding hearts....well I did not forget about them but why should we listen to a small minority all the time. It has become quite nauseating listening to the very small vocal minority in this great Country.
Have a great day.


Seasalt NS
said
0 0

What a Chroc of you know what!! First of all if someone breaks the law they should have their rights forfitted. including the right to vote, no visitations,no early release for good behavior ect. Lets build a few prisons above the artic circle give them just enough food and clothing to survive. For some of you you may think it is harsh, well talk to the ones who have lost relatives to murderers.


Fed up in Metro Vancouver
said
0 0

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah.
That is all the employees we elect do. Yap.
We have been heading in this direction for years and now all of a sudden they decide to do something? Legislation with teeth?
My opinion is their legislation is gumming crime.
I am fed up with the crooks. All of them.


shawn
said
0 0

Maybe mandatory sentences don't work, but neither does the status quo. These people are back committing crimes at the first opportunity.

So the longer they are off the street, the better.


Sandy Kay
said
0 0

Of course "experts" don't believe in longer sentences. They live off criminals and crime just like do-gooders live off poverty.
It doesn't cost a lot for longer sentences if convicts are parachuted into Baffin or Ellesmere Island or some other extremely remote place and forced to live off the land. What's the cost? No guards, no food costs, no building costs. And it can help keep the polar bears from becoming extinct.


Art
said
0 0

If your aim is to deter others from crime then studies show that minimum madatory sentances have little affect. The problem is no matter how many people you put in prison there is always some one else to commit crimes. The American three strike system should be all the proof you need of this. I also will point out that research shows that long sentences do not act as a deterant either. The assumption that giving criminal A a hard sentence will deter criminal B is inaccurate.

What we really need to do is put more money into rehabilitation of the criminals while they are in prison. Take the hundreds of thousands of dollars you want to spent to keep a criminal in prison for a couple extra years and put it into therapy and we will be much better off. Otherwise I suggest that we tax each person that wants longer incarcerations an extra 10% to pay for it.


Ray Jacques, Glen Robertson, ON
said
0 0

It always amazes me how some Conservative supporters, and others including Muslims (Sharia law), are so sure that they are correct in assuming that longer sentences deter crime. THEY DO NOT. There is no evidence at all to support that old "wife's tale".

Also, what if you as a citizen get unjustly caught-up in a crime that you did not commit ? e.g. How many Canadians who were convicted of murder and served all kinds of years in jail and DNA proved that they were in fact innocent ? (12) or so out of (20) convicted for murder

Why are some Canadians so willing to set-up other Canadians (and possibly even themselves down the line) for terrible treatment by passing oppressives laws - whether it be Tasering which I am sure that there is not one of you who would want to be treated so terribly (and painfully)by police officers just because they are lazy and do not want to take ANY risks.

Le's do what does works, proper police work, everybody is innocent until proved guilty (even Omar Khadr), and let's hope that more times than not, the punishment no only fits the crime, but also is not harming harming innocent Canadians through the mis-carriage of justice - Nnobody is perfect, nor is or legal system perfect, nor are the police, and nor are our laws

If only the Cnservatives would check their facts and not always rely on their gut / default ideological Reform Party right-wing based ideas for all matters no matter how often they are at odds with the facts.
I would not want to live in a totalitarian society no matter how many Conservativea and their supporters it offends.

Laws in themselves do not prevent crime, nor does simply repeating legislating new laws which simply repeat
existing laws.


Mister Ed, Nanaimo
said
0 0

If we ensure that kids are brought up well, they will be less likely to use illegal drugs, both in childhood and when they become adults. The government can help, with free daycare for working single mothers, for example.

Consumers want to use drugs that are illegal. That's what makes the drug trade so profitable. And the enormous profit potential is what attracts criminals.

You can put criminals in jail forever, but others will eagerly take their place, because there is so much money to be made. That's because drugs are both illegal and popular.

So until we dry up demand for drugs - or legalize them - there will always be criminals willing to satisfy the demand, in return for huge profits.

While mandatory sentences and long jail terms may help us feel safer, they will not in fact make us any safer. As long as consumers continue to demand drugs and as long as those drugs remain illegal, gangs will operate to provide the drugs, and we will continue to have gang violence.

Instead of more police and more jails - costing billions annually - we should spend the money on more social workers, better drug education, and mandatory treatment programs.

The problem is the huge demand for drugs, not the supply.




O. B. Server
said
0 0

Of course mandatory (prosecutor-set) sentencing is not effective, as it is based on coerced and lying plea-bargaining. We saw how well such works in the states. Mandatory minimums don't work. Mandatory sentencing eliminates the independent exercise of authority by judges in criminal cases. Nuremberg prosecutors condemned elimination of judges' independence and entered mandatory sentencing as part of the evidence of crimes against humanity. . Upon conviction, under mandatory sentencing judges must obey the sentencing decision of the prosecutor, who prearranges the sentence by fine tuning the indictment. Nuremberg prosecutors described "prearrangement of sentences between judges and prosecutors" as criminal. Mandatory sentencing laws expedite the plea bargain process. Mandatory sentences give prosecutors, rather than judges, the power to determine what level of punishment shall be administered upon conviction for a criminal act. One act can violate multiple drug laws ranging from misdemeanors to felonies. "Mandatory" punishment for that one act is optionally determined by the prosecutor who draws the indictment. If a prosecutor threatens a person with long imprisonment unless the person confesses to a lesser crime, such a confession is coerced. Yet in the name of drugs, courts refuse to recognize the coercion.


Dave in Courtenay
said
0 0

Lack of prison capacity is cited as one of many difficulties facing Canada's justice system. Managing and guarding criminals is not one of our cultural strengths, and is a costly burden. Why can't we “outsource” incarceration of violent, repeat offenders? I suspect that current Canadian and international laws don't allow this flexibility, but laws are just words on paper and can be changed. Whereas it costs over $50,000 per year per prisoner in Canada, I bet there are many countries that would find it profitable to do the job for less than $10,000 per year. Canadian prisons allow repeat offenders to network with their past and future contacts. Spread these people around the world in isolating circumstances, while not compromising their human rights. For example, Argentina has empty prisons from a troubled past, and unemployed citizens with the skill-set and mind-set to administer such services. Let our serious offenders know their next few years will be spent in Turkey or Syria or Algeria, cut-off from their compatriots. Give them the opportunity to develop new language skills and a new diet. Perhaps Somalia or Zimbabwe are not ready yet, but it would be sweet to see gun-crime convicts facing time in, say, Cambodia or Libya. Reward the particpating country by paying the last half of the fee upon safe return of the offender. In the meantime, many of our prison guards would find their training useful in more rewarding careers as emergency responders and in other parts of our health care and security systems.


johnn in kitchener
said
0 0

Dave in Surrey - you said:

We should have a vote, those who want lengthy prison terms can pay an additional 10% in taxes to cover the cost...

Part of that condition should be that those who do not want lengthy prison terms agree to supervise those who get off with conditional sentences, and to provide their homes PLUS constant supervision for those who are sentenced to (lengthy terms of) house arrest



Patrick Dusablon - Kingston, ON
said
0 0

Seeing how a large numbers of gang members being arrested are "known to police" and repeat offenders, would not keeping them in jail longer or denying bail actually prevent them from re-offending?

Otherwise, how could criminals be caught before they commit a crime? This is the real world, not Minority Report where clairvoyants give heads-up to the police.


RR
said
0 0

These guys are dealing in drugs, carrying guns, and shooting each other. Only a bleeding heart fool wouldn't think they should be held accountable in a severe way.

Send them to jail for a long time. Enough is enough.


Tony
said
0 0

Who are these so called experts. Defence Lawyers? The reason why they don't like minimum sentences is because if criminals are behind bars, they are out of work. Lets ask the families of the millions of innocent victims if minimum sentences work. I am confident they will say yes.


Allan M
said
0 0

Anti-crime legislation cannot be applied to the organized criminal gangs for one reason: organized criminals consider themselves outside the law and will always adapt to new ways of finding them out.

One thing that would deal the biggest blow to organized crime in Canada would be to take away criminals' control of the marijuana industry. Criminalizing weed only serves to empower organized criminals with a reliable cash-cow. Take the crime out of marijuana, organized crime will suffer a major blow just as when alcohol prohibition was repealed in the 30's.


Prof. Pye Chartt
said
0 0

FAILED PARENTING

The contrarian notion that stiffer sentences for street crimes committed by gang-bangers won't have any positive effect is asinine.

Equally as asinine is our societal failure, due largely to a cultural disease called "political correctness," to point a big, fat finger at the PARENTS of those who scurry around like rats, at all hours, making trouble of all kinds.

It's time we pushed back to the ultimate source of the problem. For too long we've shouldered the collective burden of failed parenting, and foolishly considered the issue solely one of socioeconomic status...which has compelled us to just throw money at the problem (including bogus after-school programs, etc.).

Force these parental failures to give a damn about their kids; to know where they are, and what they're up to. Make THEM share the responsibility for their offspring's criminal behavior.



Freddy C Niagara
said
0 0

It,s a criminal lawyers expert opinion, when have they used their knowledge and so called expertise to curtail crime they perpetute crime(by keeping the bad on the streets) to feed their endless need for wealth.Listen to their talking points firstly their client is innocent,someone else did it,they have no evidence,they concoct a defence submit their argument in front of a judge (usually a previous criminal lawyer)then when their client is convicted(If were lucky) the judge must have erred in law and then they appeal and then bill us.Then the judge gives their convicted client a severe tongue lashing and sentences them to time served.A truley wonderful system as it is now geez we have got to try a different approach!


Mr. Manitoba
said
0 0

Keep these punks locked up for longer. It may cost some money but it is probably far less then the costs incurred by having them out on the street. Julian Falconer doesn't get it, you can't be a threat to society when you are effectively removed from it.


Steve
said
0 0

Olivia Chow wants to catch criminals before they commit a crime?

Sounds like the NDP is taking their policy direction from Hollywood's Minority Report.


AJA
said
0 0

Whatever it takes to get these people off the street and deter others from going down that road needs to be done. Mandatory minimums, throwing away the key or stringing them up. I fail to understand why our society puts up with the criminal activities that gangs bring to it. How many innocent people have to die? We create a storm when our military accidentally kill an innocent person in a war zone!! Why do criminals get away with it here?


dghlfghglflghjlugfjhgla
said
0 0

somebody wants to put it to a vote....the problem is that we put it to a vote and elected a government that is more willing to listen to the reactionary opinions of mob mentality (when it comes to crime enforcement) than the opinions of experts in the field. we've passed the point of no return in this society: ignorance in the form of a democratic statement is more important than scientific fact. the facts are that minimum sentences don't work; the studies cited in the article are the proof so don't ask for more. it doesn't matter how often or how loudly you state the facts anymore, uninformed opinion trumps all in our system of "democracy". it was the same thing with the tax cuts a few years ago: all of the experts said the gst cuts would do nothing more than bankrupt the government and, surprise!, they were right. the government chose to follow backwards populist positions instead of sound fiscal management. in this area of crime prevention the government is again choosing to follow backwards populist positions instead of sound management and you fools will eat it right out of their hand.


JP in North Saanich, BC
said
0 0

Here is a suggestion for the present governmnet and the next Liberal Governmnet -
Set a date say 2015-
Start now and RE WRITE the criminal code from page one to end.
Many things are out dated.
Re Write and bring it up to par with the present day .
Changing a little at a time is a waste of money


Al
said
0 0

I would not expect any other type of comment from a lawyer. Any mandatory sentences make their job defending criminal more difficult. As well as slow down rotation of clients.
This means reduction of income potential.

Regarding rehabilitation - labor camps is the best way to get it. This approach has several advantages - gives working skills that open a way for reintegration into society, helps society to recover at least part of the cost of sentencing and more.
Most of law abiding citizens are working for their living so there is no reason why criminals should not.


M. Cameron
said
0 0

Criminals in prison may not be able to commit a crime but what about rehabilitation? What is the point of letting them out eventually if they are just going to reoffend because they had no help to prevent them from reoffending? It doesn't help them and it doesn't help anyone else. Prison can't be just about throwing people away in the garbage like litter. It has to be about recycling that garbage to allow it to be reused (if possible and it is in certain cases).


Mark Farner
said
0 0

I say shoot the gang bangers.
No big burden on us and it's cheap and effective. Enough coddling them, they can't be reformed anyway. A few less losers on the planet is a good thing. Do you thing for a minute that they give a rat's *ss about anyone else??
Think about it.


david
said
0 0

Experts(?) just dont get it and are detached from us lower forms of life. Mandatory sentences get the scum off the steets for longer periods, lessening the chance of reoffending!
I wonder how the "experts" would feel if their loved one is killed?

Experts---ha!


Drug Reform.
said
0 0

What really needs to be looked at is the Gangs source of income that enables them to purchase weapons and frees them from regular employment, DRUGS. Legalize the consumption of drugs, control the distribution of drugs and regulate them in a manor similar to alcohol/tobacco. Remove gang members main source of income and they must seek other means to support themselves, something that benefits society.Increased penalties for possession of handguns/automatic weapons and perpetrators or violent crimes will help cure the symptoms but will not cure the disease.


not an expert in an ivory tower
said
0 0

Just look where all the experts have gotten us to in the world, look around.
Maybe the experts should try wearing the average citizens shoes now and then.


Rander
said
0 0

And what else would a prominent criminal lawyer say....This isn't news....go out and ask victims of violent crimes what they think. What happened to balanced reporting in Canada??


Dane
said
0 0

To Dave and Surrey,

Maybe if we didn't let them out so early, they wouldnt be able to use their extensive prison contacts.

The only Gangs I want to see on the street are Chain Gangs, so let's start making these criminals work, it might teach them something about making a real living.


Jim in Edmonton
said
0 0

The hard reality is that most of the criminal dealing in drugs and involved in gangs will never change or "get a job:! So it's better to have them in jail to protect society. Citizens are fed up with revolving door justice. Look them up and throw away the key so the rest of us can walk the streets in safety.


Allison Budd, Calgary
said
0 0

The Police can successfully catch the criminals. However, too often the charges are plea bargained to a lesser crime with lesser sentences. Too often we see violent criminals released onto the streets because they get credit for time served - at 2 or 3 times the actual time served. The reality is that Crown Prosecutors have too many cases on their desks to be able to prosecute the real crime. We need to spend more on the prosecution as well as the penalty. In fact, many criminals have significant anger/drug/mental health issues and if they go to a Federal prison they are much more likely to get treatment than if they stay on the street


Rick in Calgary
said
0 0

How about a mandatory sentence in an institution that elinates any concept of personal freedom. Then once the convicted person has finished their entire sentence without causing anymore problems or commiting any offences in prison, they would then be sent somewhere else for rehabilitation. I think a perfect example would be to fashion our prisons on the Service Detention Barracks in Edmonton. That system has very few people that re-offend.


Ian Fidler
said
0 0

How long are we going to let social engineers highjack our "justice" system? You've had your chance for the last 40 years, and it isnt working. Time to add some real consequences. Judges dont want to give appropriate sentences, time for mandatory minimums. Rehabillitation is important for the non-hardened criminals, but once you are a proven hardened criminal, its no longer about the rehabillitation,it becomes about protecting society.
Enough is enough!


Jim (Vancouver)
said
0 0

Though not involved in the gang activity, I know a number of gang members well and I know that they have police officers who constantly tip them off when their names come into question. Maybe the first thing to do is clean up alleged corruption in the RCMP? A simple lie detector test of every officer will clean up the problem quickly. Canadians have no idea how much police corruption exists. The RCMP brass concern themselves far too much with image and tend to keep this from us! I'm not saying it's the solution but it sure would help!


TimT
said
0 0

utter stupidity.

It doesn't matter how many times you show that longer jail terms don't work, people don't want to believe it. They want someone to tell them everything will be ok and we'll put the bad guys in jail.

The truth is, Harper is trying to shore up his sagging support, and he knows full well people will swallow it hook line and sinker every time.

This government promised real solutions not do nothing tell people what they want to hear nonsense.

Sure. Increase the terms. Maybe that's not a bad thing. But don't try and tell me, that's a solution.


Adam
said
0 0

Everyone talks about how much it costs to keep a criminal in jail. More then most people make per year on a per person basis. I'm all for longer sentences, especially repeat offenders without a care for anyone or anything. But here's an idea, why not make these criminals work, hard labour if need be, anything that makes them productive, really I care. Have the white coller criminals farm and produce food for the other inmates. Make the whole system more self-suffincient, it'll save tax money, and maybe even teach a few lessons about hard work. Nevermind free food and cable and internet and college. Why can't I have free college? Because I obey the law?! What's the deal?! Screw the charter of rights and freedoms. How about if you break the law, you forfeit certains laws and freedoms. Maybe that's a little extreme for the granola munchers out there, but's it's just common sense.


Marcus
said
0 0

Deterence and rehabilitation are only two goals of sentencing. Sometimes, simply keeping scum behind bars is a third option that keeps the rest of us productive citizens safer.


tc
said
0 0

Perhaps this lawyer is afraid longer sentences will cut into his business. Our justice system is a joke right now with the lame punishments dished out. We need to protect society more from those that don't want to live within it and contribute in a meaningful manner. The criminals can still be rehabilitated while spending more time in jail. Longer sentences should be a part of that.
As for those who think we shouldnt actually punish criminals I wonder what your thoughts would be if it was your child murdered or your spouse killed by a drunk or your sibling killed by a drive by shooter.


David
said
0 0

Mandatory minimum sentences cost money. Anything that keeps people in jail longer costs money. Short stays in jail are merely schooling and networking for criminals.

There is only one logical conclusion -- capital punishment for all offenses. It will save money and keep criminals off the street, and provide a handy supply of replacement body parts from healthy young adult males besides!

Ah, but those pesky human rights... they are such a bother.


JJ in Victoria
said
0 0

Yet another silly argument that somehow if all the criminals are in jail, you won't have less crime. I guess they are saying that if all the criminals are in jail, everyone else will start robbing banks just to keep the numbers up. Outsource prisons to mexico and increase the use of 20+ year ACTUAL TIME SERVED sentences and see what happens.


Karen J Cao
said
0 0

BOTH COPS & CRIMINOLOGISTS & LAWYERS AGREE THAT TOUGHER SENTENCES AND MORE COPS WILL NOT DETER CRIME

It will only deter the small petty ones

It cost AT LEAST $50 000/year/prisoner --- that's MORE $$ than we spend on our children and the youths out there that are committing crimes.... and that is a SHAME

crime isn't natural, its a result of poverty, lack of opportunity, discrimination and a whole host of other factors

it's politically more popular to say I will hire x # cops and increase the jail sentences,

why? because you can't quantify the effects of good social programs for our kids, of well funded schools and job-training and employment programs, community centres etc.

the U.S. has probably some of the toughest sentences on crime and yet it has the highest level of crime in any developed nation...


Bedour A
said
0 0

People on here have to stop being so simplistic, humans are NOT rational actors, that's why these black and white programs don't fricken work.... and don't attack the expert that actually did his homework, did the studies, worked with criminals, youths and cops

do your own homework first


Joseph
said
0 0

Okay lets just say this information is from a lawyer who will loose bussiness if it goes through. The states proved this type of punishment works, aka the three strikes rule, not to mention the death penalty. Oh yeah lets not get into the consecutive terms that we know doesn't work.


Vancouverite
said
0 0

Sure, locking people up stops those people from committing crimes, while they are inside (learning more about crime)

But do you know how much it costs to imprison someone? It is very expensive, and there is no guarantee that prison will 'reform' the person.

Some stats:

# Cost of incarcerating a Federal prisoner (2004/5): $259.05 per prisoner/per day
# Cost of incarcerating a Federal female prisoner (2004/5): $150,000-$250,000 per prisoner/per year
# Cost of incarcerating a Federal male prisoner (2004/5): $87,665 per prisoner/per year
# Cost of incarcerating a provincial prisoner (2004/5): $141.78: per prisoner/per day
# The cost of alternatives such as probation, bail supervision and community supervision range from $5-$25/day.


Smarted spending of money on social programs to give city kids a chance at more in life is far more cost effective. Employment programs, training, etc.

Finally, if you really want to shut down crime then STOP PROHIBITION. It does nothing to cut the supply of drugs it only benefits criminals, wastes public funds and we all suffer from the violence.


Enough talk, put people in jail
said
0 0

Lengthy sentences take money out of the pockets of the Liberal funded old boys club.The Liberals cry for programs and then give the programs to their buddies, who then run useless programs, campaigning for Liberals saying look what we have done, don't you all feel good. Yet shootings and gang activity rise every year.
Enough, put people in jail.Use the system in Texas. Their crime rates involving guns have dropped every year since minimum mandatory sentences were imposed when using a gun.


eddytoronto
said
0 0

I want the right to have a fire arm Okay!

I work at a Hospital and this weekend we treated 3 break and enter victims. They were helpless but faught Valiantly. One had his thumb almost ripped of and he was beaten. The other died of shock and 1 in ICU. All of this for a T.V and a Wallet... Why did this happen? I will tell you why because our Goveremnt lets all the criminals know that we are defenseless by banning guns.

Why doesnt a bear attack a porcupine.

I want to be that a porcupine!

I want are Goverment to let all the criminals know that we are armed and will blow your head off.

Times are getting rough and jobless people get a liitle crazy.

Say No to All Flu Shots and Vaccines.

Our Goverment is "illegitimate" Not to be Trusted!


Nancy Gallagher
said
0 0

Lawyers don't want long stiffer sentences as it affects their bank account. They make a LOT more money,having these thugs in and out,ands representing them each time.


Doug BC
said
0 0

I'm with the poster who rightly point out that it may not stop gangs,but it will sure stop the ones we lock up.There ae several hundred people in BC alone who are walking the streets as free citizens in spite of the fact that EVERY ONE OF THEM has over 100 convictions.
I'm afraid it's to late now to go along with the suggestion by "R/H Ontario.I wish it wasn't.I'm now ashamed to admit I was one of those against the death penalty when that debate was going on.But,in my defense I never heard anyone talking about how killers would be out so fast,if ever.
Thanks to Trudeau's flawed "Charter of Rights I doubt we'll ever catch up with the court case.It now takes 7 times longer to prepare the evidence in a very clear cut case.Nice work my Liberal friends.
We could use life without parole,and deportation a lot more though.And,as "R/H oints out,we have to deep six the "two for one" at sentencing,and use more "consecutive" sentences instead of "concurrent".
As to "Dave in Surrey"'s points I have to wonder what he's thinking.Gang members have lots of contacts,for a start.Secondly,if we do it right they'll be old men when they get out.AND,they will know one thing,that they don't want to go back inside.And finally,if "Dave" doesn't want to pay his share,I'm willing to bet there are thousands of people who'd be willing to do his civic duty for him.
Better 10% more than keep counting the bodies in the street.Anyway,we'd likely re-coup more than that through lower insurance,policing,and the tax dollars we spend to repair the damage they do.
Law abiding citizens deserve to be thought of before these parasites.


Harper 's a fool - from the West
said
0 0

I am amazed by what I read here. Such ignorance of the criminal justice system, and the natural path of society.

Mandiatory sentneces only fills jails with small time Mom and Pop pot growers.

Organized thugs are out in days with high priced lawyers and nothing is going to change that.

The only change is to realize that prohibition doesn't work. It only funds criminal activity because it forces thing we want in our everyday lives into the underground - thus giving the underground control.

If all drugs were availlable through pharmacies, we would have taxation, control and less gang land activity. Thus less crime.

Criminalization and mandatory sentences is simply old world thinking to new age problems.

I bet the next argyument is "god wanted it that way" -get real people.

Society does drugs - lots of them!

Housewives to hippies - as soon as you recognize that and stop criminalizing it - the problem will be controllable.

Until then - it's a criminals world.

DJ
said
0 0

I doubt if gang members are going to worry about mandatory sentences. Their fellow or opposition gang members can invoke worse punishment...death.

But it can't do any harm.


John Nayduk
said
0 0

We have tough laws, but I agree with minimum sentences. We need tougher judges who will give out tougher prison terms. I work in the law enforcement system and if people really knew the revolving door that our legal system really is, there would be an up roar.


kevin
said
0 0

OK... Youg guys are all missing the point here. If I wanted to stop Jaywalking (a crime) I could do it by installing penalty of death for all offenders and surely not too many people would commit this crime. This strategy would work quite well for all crimes that most of you commenters commit such as speeding, tax cheating, etc etc. This is clearly a preposterous system and so is mandatory minimum sentencing for any other crime. We have a good system already in which the details of each individual case are weighed by a judge or jury and the sentences are made in accordance with all the details of the crime. But of course you mo..rons know better than the people who hear all the details.


Kevin D Calgary
said
0 0

Here's an idea, can we actually try it. We have tried the reconcilliation, we have tried the education, we have tried the welfare staet. Lets actually try this, and if in 5 years it's not working try something else. But at this point with innocent people getting shot in noon time drive bys, innocent students being permanently blinded (calgary) we can't keep doing what we are currently doing because it doesn't work. I hope they bring back the removal of bail for people charged with first degree murder. At least this will keep the gang member off the streets while waiting for trial.


james
said
0 0

Another so-called expert in criminology. Wasn't it these experts that have created this mess in the first place? The more we implement of their "programs", the higher the crime goes.

A simple solution: Gang crime is punishable by throw them in jail and toss away the key. Gang members in jail means no gang crime.


TC from BC
said
0 0

It's a start. The problem is our over-liberalized country is short on space in it's jails. This and the fact that judges don't have the misfortune of being victims of crime, has kept criminals on the streets. Hopefully things will change.


Richard L. Provencher
said
0 0

I notice the so called "expert" had no suggestions as an alternate plan. So typical of critics. Easy to shoot down ideas belonging to someone else. I suppose this "expert" would like to do a very expensive and long term study for the next two years, while the gangs explode against each other. Let the tough rules flow. Take the gang members out of circulation by tough legislation. Way to go Mr. PM.


Ben
said
0 0

The problem is that as a society we are reactive rather than proactive. If you want to truly nip this problem then you have to deal with teens before they become involved in gangs. It might help Harper to think of why teens join gangs. Well, the number one reason is they are accepted regardless of who they are.

Unfortunately, they quite often have to do heinous crimes and innocent bystanders are increasingly hurt. To deal with this there must be more support to get youth involved with community rather than gangs. This has proven to work and saves money. In other words, less crime and suffering while saving Canadian taxpayers money. Until we support our vulnerable youth this problem will continue to get worse.


kevin From vancouver
said
0 0

do you really think mandatory minimums are worth it? If i said 10yrs man min for jaywalking would you say yes because it would work? A judge who hears al the details of a case is far better placed to decide appropriate sentences than some bureaucrat in ottawa or... any of you buffoons


Ben
said
0 0

Hey Tom in Calgary. I beg to differ about rehabilitation not working and just using longer prison sentences. The fact is that even with a long sentence such as 20-25 years the offender will still get out. In many cases these crimes are committed by teenagers or gang members in their twenties. So they will be out when the are forty or fifty. With no skills or knowledge about haw to control themselves in society they will be right back where they were. In a gang and committing crime. So basically we are perpetuating the cycle of violence and maybe even causing deaths in society as a result.

Not to mention that the cost to keep someone locked up for 20-25 years costs around 2 - 2.5 million dollars. I think if you look at the U.S. it will show that it only makes the problem worse while continuing to cost huge amounts of money. Locking up offenders and not doing anything for them only deepens crime in the long run and costs more.


hobo joe
said
0 0

These are not kids from the streets these are kids from middle class homes. Harsher sentences are about punishment not to deter.


TheWorkingPoor
said
0 0

We need to consider other programs used around the world. The USA offers injections. China offers organ donations.

I believe these programs have been effective at correcting individuals. I believe they are more cost effective as well.


WestofTheRockies
said
0 0

Hardly an unbiased statement, he's a defence lawyer. It affects his income you can’t appeal a mandatory sentence. Al Copone's lawyers said the same thing. Anyhow, who needs proof that stronger or mandatory sentences work we have all the proof we need that the light sentence we have are not working.

There is no consequence because more often than not after a lot of hard work getting them to court, some mamby-pampy left wing Judge will let them out anyhow on some ridiculous technicality, and besides criminals have rights too!

Time to lock up these smug little ingrates up for a loooong time and have them pay their way instaed of being supported by us. And they have to do this in order to have that dinner that’s better than many working people in Canada have, then retire to watch a movie or some cable TV & climb into a warm bed.

We have a lot of highways in need of a lot of work. 10, 15, 20 years in a chain gang in Canada's weather & these guys would think twice before going back to their old ways.

Why don't we just try it and see?



User Tools

Share with your social Network:

 

Advertisement

Related Stories

Contest

User Tools

About the tools

Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.

Share it with your network of friends

Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.

Share this article with Facebook

Share this article with Digg

Share this article with Newsvine

Share this article with delicious

Share this article.
Send Email

Share this article with Twitter

Share this article with StumbleUpon

Share this article with Reddit

Share this article with Yahoo! Buzz

Most Viewed News Stories

View More News Stories

Most Talked about Stories

I applaud the budget, even though Health Care and education may stay unscathed. Sadly this cannot last and I worry to later this year where cuts will become enviable. If anything, this provides the Wildrose Alliance plenty of ammo when an election is called.

J Stad

Alberta going for broke with record $4.7B budget deficit

Got something to say? Share on CTV News

News Categories

Shows