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?

