Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Thursday, March 01, 2012

Soft on cost-cutting

The most worrying part of Kevin Page's report on the cost of changes to Canada's conditional sentencing laws came when he mentioned that no one else had tried to compile the same information.

"We received no data, effectively, from Correctional Services Canada," Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, told reporters Tuesday, after the report was released. "What we also found when dealing with these sorts of issues, when we went to Statistics Canada, when we went to the provinces, we didn't get any sense that federal bureaucrats or the government actually had done the costing," he said. "We were going to the original sources of data and we were finding that we were the first people asking these questions."

Given the size of the omnibus crime bill, the immense range of issues it covers, the controversial nature of the contents and the considerable anticipated cost, the possibility that no one had sought to check the figures beforehand is more than a little disconcerting. Especially given that we're talking about a Conservative government in the midst of a major cost-cutting exercise, a looming budget and a pledge to eliminate the federal deficit forthwith.

While the section covering conditional sentencing is only a small part of Bill C-10, it's an important one, and one the Tories haven't hesitated to point to as proof of their intention to get tough on criminals of all sorts. But the figures related by Mr. Page suggest they're flying by the seat of their pants.

The cost, he said, would add up to about $145-million a year, almost all of it charged to the provinces. "You add that up over five years and you're looking at three-quarters of a billion dollars," he noted. "Our numbers are not consistent with the federal government. We're saying that there are substantial fiscal impacts."

Mr. Page calculates the new approach actually would result in fewer offenders in custody than usual. They would spend less time in jail, and would cost a great deal more per person. Allowing for time spent in pre-trial custody and time off for good behaviour, under Bill C-10 offenders would likely spend just 225 days instead of 348 days under the supervision of corrections officers, the report found. But the cost would be 16 times higher: $41,000 each, up from $2,600.

"In effect, fewer offenders will be punished for shorter amounts of time, at greater expense, but in provincial correctional facilities rather than the community," says the study.

If Ottawa had considered these costs - which it didn't immediately dispute - and judged them necessary, it might be reassuring. But Page suggested they hadn't checked. "We didn't get any sense that federal bureaucrats or the government actually had done the costing."

That judgement would fit with the Conservatives' general approach to their crime bill, which has been to play it for maximum emotional effect, while sloughing-off criticism and questions about cost. Doubters are "soft on crime," or unworthy of response. Another part of the bill, dealing with mandatory minimum sentences, has come under heavy fire, with a number of U.S. jurisdictions with first-hand experience in mandatory minimums advising that they are both expensive and ineffective. As a former U.S. justice official wrote in the Ottawa Citizen:

"Mandatory minimums severely damaged the credibility and reputation of the justice system and put innocent victims behind bars. Perjury increased dramatically, as perpetrators attempting to avoid long mandatory sentences concocted stories to convince prosecutors that other, minor participants were really the ring leaders. Threats and killings of civilian witnesses ('snitches') became epidemic, and non-drug legal matters were squeezed out of strained court systems."

Last week, an Ontario judged dismissed mandatory minimums as unconstitutional in sentencing a 30-year-old man to five months of house arrest after he was caught admiring himself while holding a loaded weapon. Judge Anne Molloy described the three-year mandatory as "cruel and unusual punishment" that would be "fundamentally unfair, outrageous, abhorrent and intolerable."

Simply ignoring these concerns does the government no credit. Canadians are not hesitant to see serious offenders committed to long sentences behind bars. But they must also be convinced the tougher approach is justified, that it is being implemented based on solid data and information, that it will improve the administration of the laws and that taxpayers will receive value for money. So far, the government hasn't succeeded in making that case.

Original Article
Source: national post
Author: Kelly McParland

No comments:

Post a Comment