The Proletariat Congress

It has been proven in the US through its overcrowded, bloated prison system that a “tough” stance on crime and a three strike system just simply does not work. None of their prisoners have been given a chance to show that they have reformed. The system just keeps putting people in, but, how many come out? There are alternative means of sentencing offenders, especially if the offender has committed a petty crime, or his/her offence, even if repeated has little or no impact on society.

It is never an answer to be ‘tougher’ on crime. Most reports show that such tactics will and always will fail.

Instead of calling for tougher sentences and laws, the NDP have repeatedly called on the federal Tories to invest in social programs aimed at reducing crime and reaching out to the young people who are considered most at risk. They have also called for more police to have a ‘beat’. They believe that people will trust the police more and will help stop crimes if the people can trust police officers more.

The same group also believes that progressive social policies that target at-risk groups and give them programs to help them rise out of the cycle of poverty, considered one of the root causes of crime. If the same people have access to better education, as well as their parents, as well as to services to help them, crime wouldn’t be an alternative for these people.

If soft drugs, such as Marijuana were decriminalised for small amounts, there would be no need to charge people on charge of possession of illegal narcotics. Or, even yet, legalised it. It would reduce the amount of illegal activity surrounding the most popular of all the illegal narcotics. Use may rise, but the drug would be out of the hands of the Mafia and the black market and in the hands of law-abiding Canadians.

But, none of this matters to the federal Tories who want to appear tough on crime, even though a clear whooping majority of Canadians don’t want a bunch of neo-cons who appear tough on crime, they want politicians who listen and not employ failed policies.

So, what did the Harper administration want to include in its ‘tough on crime’ bill?

They wanted to have mandatory minimum sentencing. But, Correctional Services Canada objects to this for a number of reasons, including it would significantly inflate the prison population, putting criminals who committed petty crimes in with those who have done worse.

On mandatory minimum prison sentences, legislation which the Conservatives have introduced for gun- and gang-related crime, and promised for serious drug offences, and for crimes committed while on parole or for repeat offenders: “Research shows mandatory minimums do not have a deterrent or educative effect.” It notes the United States is moving away from mandatory minimum sentences, and embarking on reforms to improve parole to ease crowding and reduce incarceration rates. It says “increased incarceration reduces funds available for social programs that prevent crime.”

It would reduce funds for social programs that would prevent crime? It seems that the Liberals and NDP aren’t the only wants marching to that drum beat.

Correctional Services Canada also favours early release for offenders who have shown improved and good behaviour. They believe that when an offender has demonstrated that (s)he has reformed that it’s in the favour of the system to offer them statutory early release, and ease the burden on the prison system, keeping the population from becoming bloated.

On Harper’s promise to repeal statutory release, the legal right to early release for prisoners who serve two-thirds of their sentences, upon good behaviour: Such a proposal would have a huge impact on prison populations. The document says two-thirds of all federal offenders released in 2004-05 were statutory releases, with generally few problems. In the last five years, it said, only 3 per cent of offenders out on statutory release saw their freedom revoked “for a violent offence.”

…

Impact on aboriginal offenders is flagged. Without statutory release, it says, they would “be further delayed in their return to the community, preventing them from benefiting from more culturally appropriate interventions.”

That’s one group fewer left outstanding in the system, especially if they can benefit from not being in the prison system, and gain benefits from being back with their peers who can help them fully reform.

Correctional Services Canada works closely with these offenders so, it’s clear who knows what’s the better way of doing this.

Especially when it comes to how effective multiple, or rather, consecutive sentences (not concurrent sentences) really are. If sentencing an offender, namely for violent and/or sexual offences, for a long time is truly effective or not…

On promised consecutive sentences for multiple violent or sexual offences: “Credible research shows that longer sentences do not contribute to public safety and may actually increase the risk of recidivism (repeat offences) for some offenders.”

And it’s always recidivism that puts people back in jail when they are released because they have been isolated from the public for so long that they forget how to behave outside of prison, where they are part of a greater service that treats offenders like children. They are watched 24/7, and they don’t make any of their own choices. When they are in for a long time, they become reliant on this system because they are faced with the inevitability that this will be the only system of life they know, until they are release, at which point they become lost.

And those who are still with the system? The Tories would love nothing more than for these to have no voice.

On Harper’s suggestions that a Tory government would take away voting rights from federal prisoners: The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld prisoner-voting rights as “unfettered.”

But, that darn pesky Superior Court of Canada has interfered and declared that prisoners still have voting rights, just like they declared that those sexual deviants; those blasphemous homosexuals, have rights too. It seems that everyone has rights these days, thanks to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which are entrenched.

So, are we going to try and use that ‘Not Withstanding‘ clause, Prime Minister, or do you not wish to risk political suicide?

Of course, you’ve already chosen to commit political suicide by borrowing the much-failed three-strike policy that the American government has tried to use, but has seen the adverse effects, which include and not limited to a massive increase in prison population.

On a proposal to automatically designate as a “dangerous offender” anyone convicted of a third violent or sexual offence (sometimes called the “three-strikes” bill): The bureaucrats’ analysis says because aboriginal offenders have a higher rate of conviction for assault and related offences, the proposal could have a “disproportionately higher impact” on natives.

Given the wide available definitions of ‘violent’ and ‘sexual’, there is a great chance that the three offences can be very small, or the offences can occur at varying degrees…we won’t go into this, we believe this is self-explanatory.

And while we’re filling the prison population with repeat offenders, let’s also reduce the rate at which we can use suspended and conditional sentences, despite that Correctional Services Canada doesn’t support the idea.

On restricting access to conditional sentences (also known as “house arrest”): Conditional sentences are imposed in fewer than 5 per cent of all cases, have reduced admissions to provincial jails by 13 per cent with no negative impact on crime rates, and “generally worked well and garnered praise from sentencing experts around the world,” said the bureaucrats.

So, despite that it has been shown to work well, the Tories want to put strong restrictions on it? And spend yet more tax payer money on keeping people in prison rather than focusing on the other needs of society.

At least the other three major federal political parties don’t feel the need to govern with their collective hands buried in the sand.

As it turned out, the combined Liberal, Bloc Québécois and New Democratic opposition succeeded in substantially amending this bill, and a watered-down version passed the Commons and Senate. A source told the Star yesterday that without the amendments, the law would have had a huge impact on provincial jail populations.

Too bad they didn’t band together to decriminalise marijuana…

Jailers fear PM’s justice overhaul

Stumble It!

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 11th, 2007 at 10:59 am and is filed under conservatives, politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.