I hear a lot of people complaining that judges are too easy on criminals.
This is why that is not true: criminals are people. Far too often we get caught up in labelling and lose sight of the fact that offenders are fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, friends and neighbours, grandparents and Canadians.
By design, Canada’s justice system is geared toward rehabilitation, not punishment. That is what advanced societies do. And even when punishment is required, we do so with an eye to preventing recidivism. You don’t do that by being overly punitive, that just further disenfranchises people, makes them bitter and angry, reinforces and exacerbates their problems, almost guaranteeing they will be back.
When you spend a lot of time around the courts, as I do, you can’t help but start to see things differently because you see offenders as people, not statistics. They are living, breathing beings with hopes and fears and problems and families and loved ones. Many are remorseful for their crimes. Others know no other way of life than blaming others, or their circumstances or their addictions for their crimes. They need help.
And they have rights, specifically right to life, liberty, and security of the person; freedom from unreasonable search and seizure; freedom from arbitrary detention or imprisonment; right to legal counsel and the guarantee of habeas corpus; rights in criminal and penal matters such as the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty; right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment; rights against self-incrimination; and rights to an interpreter in a court proceeding.
That is directly from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In addition to respecting these rights, judges must abide by principles of sentencing, primary among them, the fundamental principle that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
Secondary principles include that an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.
This is really important because the overwhelming majority of offenders are already disadvantaged whether by poverty or addictions or cognitive issues.
When judges render decisions, whether for judicial interim release or sentencing, you often hear them say, “it is in the best interest of the accused and not contrary to the public interest.”
Overly harsh sentencing is in nobody’s best interest, not the offenders obviously, but also not victims or society at large.
Very few people are truly evil, dangerous or incorrigible. For those we have judicial discretion and special designations such as the “dangerous offender” status.
“Locking ‘em up and throwing away the key,” or “beating ‘em to a pulp” as I have seen suggested on social media over some fairly minor charges is not justice, it is the basest form of crass vengeance.
Especially at this time of year, we should all be mindful that the system is designed to be as lenient as is reasonably possible. That is the correct design. It is the right thing to do, it is the just thing to do, and it is the Christian thing to do.
