Skip to content

Crime and Punishment

The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.

The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.

"If you do the crime, you'll do the time" and "Use a gun and you're done" are a couple of the modern day slogans from U.S. states that have greatly increased punishment for gun crimes. In fact, one criminal with no prior record was sentenced to more than 50 years for using a gun, which caused quite a stir among "rehabilitation advocates." It looks now that the 'get tough' attitude is going to happen in Canada with the law and order Conservatives running the country. This was promised during the election campaign even before the Toronto gun crimes. The Tories promised to put more police on the streets (paid for by scrapping the Liberal boondoggle gun registry), arming customs border guards, and cracking down on gun smuggling and crimes committed with guns. Conservatives and many others didn't have much good to say about the Liberal Party's response to gun crimes, which was to ban all handguns, legal or not. They pointed out that handguns have been banned and controlled since 1934, and only the honest gun owners would be affected by such an ineffective law. The Tories also propose to toughen mandatory minimum sentences for offences involving firearms (the current minimum is four years). This proposal has considerable support, backed by such notables as the police associations and unions, and Manitoba's NDP Justice Minister. But the idea does have critics, with some claiming that mandatory minimum sentences neither protect society nor rehabilitate criminals. They also claim that this will lead to more imprisonment, greater costs to the taxpayers and won't address the "root causes of crime" Ð poverty, unemployment and the like. One critic claims that it costs at least $50,000 per year to incarcerate a criminal, and much more for murderers like Paul Bernardo (the best reason for returning the death penalty in Canada, in this writer's opinion), and that increased costs of imprisonment will inevitably lead to cuts in social funding, which will lead to more crime. Others say there will always be recruits for gangs among the disadvantaged who want to be prosperous but have no other way of achieving it but through crime. Those advocating tougher justice do not accept these "bleeding heart liberal" ideas and claim that the soft approach to criminals has led to the present state of affairs. They point out that mandatory minimum sentences have led to massive decreases in gun crime in the U.S. and Canada. They also note that when the criminals are in jail they are not committing crimes and the public is much safer, especially those in poorer areas of the cities where the crimes are most common. Most believe in rehabilitation and tackling the the problems of the disadvantaged, but also that protecting the public is most important. Reacting to the murder of a retail clerk in late February by a criminal who was mandatorily released from prison after serving two-thirds of his sentence, Justice Minister Vic Toews said he wants to change the guaranteed release so that criminals have to earn the release, not just sit in prison and reject rehabilitation help. No doubt most right thinking people will agree, and maybe even go farther and clamp down on granting parole so easily. By the way, the slain clerk was also a criminal and was out on bail for robbery. It was a different kind of "criminal activity" but in early February disgraced former Liberal cabinet minister and head of the Mint, David Dingwall Ð who had resigned his job Ð was given a $400,000-plus settlement by an arbitrator who said he was forced to leave. Apparently the settlement was made three days before the election, and the Conservatives claim the Liberals knew about it and kept quiet for obvious reasons. The Privy Council Clerk made the decision to go to binding arbitration and claimed the Martin government did not know about the decision until after voting day. Many would not believe this. The Clerk Ð Alex Himelfarb, the top civil servant in the country Ð was recently replaced by Prime Minister Harper. Roger's Right Corner runs Wednesdays.

push icon
Be the first to read breaking stories. Enable push notifications on your device. Disable anytime.
No thanks