On Sunday, CTV News ran a story, regarding a government study, which indicated tougher sentences don't deter crime. While initially about drunk drivers, the story did use information gathered, to comment about deterrence with stronger jail terms.
 |
| Study says tougher sentences don't deter crime. |
I am going the ask the question however, should the purpose of jail terms ONLY be to deter crime --- or perhaps should we be considering the safety of others --- in other words the protection of Canadians?? Before we consider that however, let's look at a few facts in the story.
- first they said that 57% re-offended within five years
- the severity of the first sentence seemed to have no impact on the behaviour of the offender
- they said there appeared to be no evidence showing the consequences of breaking the law had any affect at all on it re-occurring.
"Reconviction rates for all individuals were similar regardless of the sentence received for the initial impaired driving conviction."
In recent weeks many have said that if the affects of increased consequences have no result, then why bother? Perhaps a better question would be, if the consequences have no results, why are we turning career criminals loose to re-offend again?
We have gone from those guilty of a crime being punished ... to what some would say is a Club Med, or country club, vacation for those convicted of criminal acts. I personally do not think that is accurate, however something has happened to give people that opinion.
Again … let me quote more from this CTV News story:
... Conservative crime policies have come under fire … claim the government ignores evidence-based research to seek political gain among Canadians who lack faith in the justice system … study that draws on a statistical analysis of crime and punishment appears at odds with the Conservative's crime-fighting philosophy … especially considering contrary findings about harsh sentencing…
And why might the federal Conservatives want to have tougher crime laws?? The following could be just a few of the reasons why;
 |
| Kidnap victim Kienan Hhebert |
- Cory Vallee has a violent history and is wanted for the slaying of rival gang member Kevin LeClair and for the killing of an innocent victim as well. He is also associated to a drug network in Mexico
- in the Kootenay’s Randall Hopley, who kidnapped a 3 year old boy, has a criminal record that stretches back more than two decades …
- we have Thomas Grant who is a chronic offender with charges for stolen property, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, possession of counterfeit money, and is also accused and before the courts on charges of assault causing bodily harm …
- Jack Froese kidnapped a Kamloops woman and is charged with kidnapping, sexual assault, aggravated assault with a weapon and uttering threats. He is a high-risk sex offender who was jailed for sexual assault with a weapon and uttering threats …
- the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit is trying to find Minh Tan LE for drug offenses and money laundering in Canada, the US and Australia …
- Cliff Tang was arrested 3 times for driving while suspended from driving after killing a pedestrian in 2000 …
- and how about Apollo Alex Verde who is alleged to have committed extensive credit card, been involved in the fraudulent transfer of land titles, and even stole title to a property owned by his own mother so he could get a mortgage to finance a Ferrari …
A CBC News story from August includes this description of dangerous offenders ... the designation "dangerous offender" is reserved for Canada's most violent criminals and sexual predators. Crown attorneys can seek the designation during sentencing and must show that there is a high risk that the criminal will commit violent or sexual offenses in the future. The designation carries an automatic sentence of imprisonment for an indeterminate period, with no chance of parole for seven years.
Toronto's criminal law professor Alan Young, thought it would be too easy for the court system to say some one was a dangerous offender … and that it would place a huge burden on suspected criminals; “It's almost imposing an impossibility, because you're saying to someone: 'Prove you're not dangerous.”
Dangerous offenders … sexual predators … repeat offenders … career criminals. Who cares what the title is we want to give them. IF they are dangerous, and if they continue to repeat criminal activity, what are we doing releasing them on an unsuspecting public?
Meantime, here is an example of the insanity of criminal designations. In BC we have the case of 82 year old Betty Krawczyk … a lady that has been protesting for the environment, defending trees and standing in front of bulldozers for many years. You will recall her last go-round was as a result of protesting the expansion of the Sea-to-Sky Highway for the Olympics. She has been arrested on numerous occasions … and served a few years in jail as a result. This lady was deemed to be a ‘repeat offender”.
She is a repeat offender which I guess must make her a danger to the community. Meantime, we have a revolving door of career criminals that offend time and time again … and who cause horrendous emotional anguish to dozens and dozens of people.
According to the Correctional Service of Canada, there were 458 dangerous offenders as of April 2011. Here are just a few examples of some of these ‘dangerous’ offenders from the Victims of Violence website:
Paul Carlson – he raped and sodomized a nurse at knife point in 1980 … molested 3 girls in 1984 ….Michael Mundy – convicted of sexually assaulting a 15 year old mentally challenged girl and given an indefinite term … previously been convicted of 4 assaults on women from 1979-1982 …Thomas Svekla – arrested for the murder of his girlfriend, but is suspected of killing as many as twelve prostitutes … had been sexually assaulting women since the age of 14, his victims include girlfriends, friends, and two young girls aged 5 and 9.Christopher Edward Newhook – has about 50 criminal convictions and has spent half of his life behind bars … found guilty of numerous violent assaults on visible minorities...Leo Teskey – Spent more than 9 years behind bars before being declared a dangerous offender after an attack that left a 61 year old man bedridden and unable to speak or move … had more than 37 prior convictions, including one for assaulting a 2 year old boy and shooting a police officer in the head.
 |
| High Risk sex offender Jack Froese |
In Canada … dangerous offender legislation was created to protect the public from the most violent and dangerous criminals. Those declared a dangerous offender are required to remain in prison until they no longer are considered a risk to the public … which could possibly mean for life. Some have said this infringes on charter rights --- others say it is necessary in special cases to protect society. I agree with the later, and I also believe it should be invoked much sooner!
That leads us then to today's "tough on crime" movement which has been gaining strength in recent years … and which I believe is one of the reasons why the federal Conservatives are determined to push the Safe Streets and Communities Act through the Commons before Christmas.
We do in fact need a better legal system. One that recognizes the rights of the victims … that recognizes then rights of Canadians to be protected … and that recognizes that some criminals don’t care and will continue to offend every time they are released.
The tough on crime legislation before Canadian MP's is long overdue … and there will be millions of Canadians who will thank MP's once it is indeed passed … hopefully before the Christmas break.
By the way, in case you are wondering where the BC Conservative Party stands on the federal crime bill, party leader John Cummins had this to say earlier in November;
“What provisions of the bill does Premier Clark not support? Does she object to ending house arrest for serious or violent offenders? Increasing penalties for sexual offenders who target children? Or is it mandatory sentences for serious drug offences? Maybe she opposes letting victims of terrorism sue supporters of terrorists and states that support terrorists? At what point does she think that protecting our children from sexual predators is too expensive?”“The Liberals don’t seem to understand that it’s the province’s job to protect children from sexual predators, to promote safety in our streets and to prevent crime. This is a constitutional obligation. This is an important responsibility, and the Liberal government continues to ignore it. Premier Clark’s actions show she is soft on crime … only the BC Conservatives support getting tough on crime and support fully the federal Safe Streets and Communities Act.”
I agree with the federal Conservatives ... and I agree with John Cummins and the BC Conservatives. Those who are a risk to offend and harm Canadians need to stay in jail ... for a LONG time.
I’m Alan Forseth in Kamloops … with the thoughts of one conservative.
No comments:
Post a Comment