Panel data provided by Madison's Canadian Lumber Reporter.

Can We Really Curb Crime?

By 250 News

-by Jack deWit

Over the past 20 years I have observed with disgust the lack of direction our justice system has had on curbing crime. If the present idealistic system goes unchanged our society will have no choice but to accept the odds of becoming a victim of break & entry, stolen car, or identity theft with an increasing regularity. As citizens we can take all the precautions suggested by the various police organizations, victim service groups, insurance companies, etc., but in the end our chances of being a victim of crime will be mollified only by a small measure. Why? The fact is that the laws and the judicial system in Canada are geared to serve the criminal. 

Joe Average has very few legal procedures at his disposal to protect his property other than ask the thief to leave his premises, or wait for a RCMP member to show up. Use any force and you will be charged. At that point the role changes and the laws work for you! Leave your property in an unsafe condition and the intruder gets hurt, the likelihood of getting sued by that intruder is probable. 

How can we reduce our chances of being victims? In my opinion, the most effective method is by eliminating the criminal. Sound harsh? Maybe, but like an outbreak of BSE (mad cow disease) the common method of control is to cull the herd. Perhaps it is time we cull our society of its demons in a similar manner. Though it might be the ultimate foolproof solution, I'm not suggesting we execute the criminal when convicted of a crime. What I am advocating is that our judicial system make some radical changes in the way sentences are handed out. 

We can eliminate the criminal element from our society with the use of incarceration. We have experimented enough years to prove that not sending criminals to jail has been an unsolicited failure. Furthermore, time spent in jail should be of a specific term set for the crime committed. No time off for good behaviour, no early parole, do 100% of the time before they are released, and then with very strict conditions. 

In the event of property crimes, I would recommend that the main thrust of the sentence be placed on restitution for the victims. It is only common sense that everyone must be accountable for their own actions and every wrong must be remedied to reflect the harm and financial burden suffered by the victims. Again the courts must take into account the violation of the victim's rights before pondering the rights of the perpetrator. We have seen sentences involving fatal car crashes (they are not accidents if the vehicle is stolen and the driver is trying to outrun the police!) resulting in a measly 8 months incarceration and a prohibition from driving. Does this show any respect for the victim's family? Just the opposite is true. It is a bloody insult to the innocent victims. 

Many Canadians object to the lack of respect and value of a human life shown in the war torn Middle East. Yet, our judges, through their sentencing, show ittle or no respect for victims of murdered loved ones let alone the murdered casualty. We are taught that cutting off a hand would be unreasonable punishment for the crime of theft, yet it is still done in some jurisdictions and the results are very effective. Without hands it is difficult to steal. I don't propose we use this method, but the lenient sentences given in Canada reflect unreasonable punishment in my opinion. Oops...punishment, that's politically incorrect!) 

So what is the solution? Conceivably we could try the Citizen's Assembly approach in determining what changes might be affective in providing a deterrent to commit a crime. Having judges appointed by politicians for life long terms may need to be looked at. Would elected judges present a fairer sentencing if they knew that their performance was being monitored and the possibility of being replaced were a factor? 

The way our system uses case law could be reviewed so that precedent setting cases don't necessarily have to be so influencing in each subsequent similar case. I would also like to see some mechanism to guarantee equal access to legal representation. Let's face it, money can win cases creating an unfair playing field. A prominent lawyer will probably have more success in court than an appointed legal aid lawyer. (No offence to the members of the bar, but every profession has a range of proficiency!) 

In summing up, it is difficult to analyze and suggest cures for an ailing system on a sheet of letter paper; however, it is fair to say that our judicial system has not provided Canadians with a fair and equitable solution to crime and punishment (there's that bad word again!). It is up to the public to demand of our governments that changes be introduced to reflect just treatment for the criminal and at the same time understand and compensate the victims for their losses, in both the physical and emotional perspective.
Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home