I was not overly surprised to see the results of our poll question from the December 19 edition of Yorkton This Week. We asked: Are the courts too soft in sentencing? Visitors to our website answered with a resounding 'yes.'
Our polls are strictly for entertainment purposes and admittedly do not live up to any scientific standard. Nevertheless, they can be an interesting snapshot and in this case reflect an overall Canadian attitude according to other polls that are conducted according to scientific methods.
In fact, the most recent surveys suggest Canadians' opinions are hardening. In 2010, Angus Reid published results that indicated a majority of citizens believe courts are too lenient and that harsh sentences and mandatory minimum sentences are deterrents to crime.
This is a very disturbing trend that represents a stark disconnect with reality.
At the same time the current government's "tough on crime" agenda seems to be gaining popularity, all the research shows the approach does not work. Harsh penalties do not deter people from committing crime; they may even exacerbate the situation.
As someone who has spent a lot of time in the courts, I believe a big trigger for hardening attitudes is dehumanization of offenders. We talk about them as if they are some separate species. When you label someone a criminal, it is easy to forget, particularly in the hyper environment of the modern news cycle, that they are people.
They are people, with families and friends and problems and emotions, just like the rest of us. The majority of the time they are not criminals, they are sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers.
The vast majority of crimes are impulsive acts. When people commit their crimes, most are not thinking about the potential consequences, and even those who are, have some kind of overriding need that makes it worth the risk.
Take the truck thief I wrote about two weeks ago as just one example. "I don't know why I do these things," he told the judge. As someone who, in his 50 years, has been sentenced to more than 27 years in jail, it is ludicrous to think he was not aware or would have been deterred by prison time.
If we are really serious about preventing crime, more jails and harsher sentences are not the answer. Just look at how well that approach has worked out for our neighbours to the south.
We need to look at what is driving people to offend and make sentences appropriate to the purpose of breaking the cycle.
The purposes and principles of sentencing are clearly laid out in Section 718 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The purposes are denunciation, deterrence, separation of offenders, rehabilitation, reparation and promotion of responsibility. Which of these purposes are appropriate are guided by well-established principles that include: "An offender should not be deprived of their liberty if less restrictive sanctions are appropriate," and "All available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered"
The courts are not too soft in sentencing; they are following the law. Perhaps the question should be: Is the Criminal Code too soft on sentencing?
My answer is still no.
When you spend time in court, the first thing you notice is that most offenders are socio-economically disadvantaged. Crime, for the most part, is a function of poverty and all its associated problems.
And, despite the popular impression, also illustrated by polls, that crime is on the rise in Canada, it has actually been decreasing, notwithstanding a huge spike in administration of justice charges-i.e., breach of probation, failure to appear in court etc.
There are incorrigible, violent criminals out there. And in those cases, I'm with the majority. I don't even care how they got to be the way they are. They must be locked up for the protection of society. That is why we have punitive purposes of sentencing entrenched in the Criminal Code.
But punishment is not what Canada is about. It's not the Canada I grew up in and it's not the future I want for my grandchildren.
Canada is about compassion and lifting up the least of our brothers. That is what our courts should continue trying to do.
