MandaTORY Minimum Sentences Do Not Work

[cybercoma]

"When you start going down this road of building more prisons and sending people away for long periods of time, and you convince yourself that this is going to deter people, you've made a colossal mistake," said Sterling ...

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/02/22/pol-mandatory-minimums-drug-crimes-us.html

Bill C-10 must be stopped. It's going to be one of the most damaging pieces of legislation passed in a generation. Sterling was one of the people in the US that helped draft mandatory minimum legislation in the 1980s. He supported it and has seen first-hand that it does not work, but rather causes more damage. The Tories need to scrap the Omnibus Crime Bill (C-10) along with their intrusive online spying bill (C-30).

[olpfan1]

What you do is put a bunch of marijuana in Harpers sons car

and call the police and tell them

jk, don't do it

[Big Guy]

One might assume that some of us learn from others’ mistakes.

On May 8, 1973, Governor of New York State Nelson Rockefeller supported and signed the “Nelson Rockefeller Drug Laws”. Governor Nelson was a staunch Republican, had right of center leaning views and aspired to become President. Understanding that “Law and Order” was always a political crowd pleaser, he decided to launch his executive aspirations by putting into law some of the most draconian legislation in the modern history of the USA. The politics did work and Nelson served as a one term Vice President in 1974.

The Rockefeller drug laws disallowed judicial discretion in sentencing and mandated minimal sentencing for crimes. These “tough, no nonsense” laws mandated that the penalty for selling two ounces (approximately 56 grams) or more of heroin, morphine, "raw or prepared opium," cocaine, or cannabis, including marijuana (these latter two being included in the statute even though they are not "narcotics" from a chemical standpoint), or possessing four ounces (approximately 113 grams) or more of the same substances, was made the same as that for second-degree murder: a minimum of 15 years to life in prison, and a maximum of 25 years to life in prison. The original legislation also mandated the same penalty for committing a violent crime while under the influence of the same drugs.

“No-nonsense” Rockefeller declared that he would solve the problem of drug use and crime in New York State with “tough on crime and sentencing” and suggested that it was only a matter of time until the rest of the USA wizened up and took the same approach. Critics warned that this approach would not work, would only lead to overcrowding and would have no effect on the crime rate.

As the years went by, the jails in New York began to overflow and subsequent legislatures repealed different parts of Nelsons laws. Because of the inabilities of judges to apply discretion to sentencing, outrageous injustices occurred. Meanwhile, the drug related and other crimes continued to increase at the same rate as the rest of the country.

In his first State of the State Address in January 2009, New York Governor David Paterson was critical of the Rockefeller drug laws, stating, "I can't think of a criminal justice strategy that has been more unsuccessful than the Rockefeller drug laws." David Paterson then repealed the infamous drug laws that served as ground zero for a prison-sentencing craze that swept North America and is now discredited. After 35 years of stuffing prisons with minor drug felons, state legislators have judged the law's mandatory sentencing provisions as expensive and ineffective.

Here in the enlightened Canada of the Harper vision, the government is declaring its “war on crime” and bringing in legislation to force judges to adhere to mandatory minimal sentencing guidelines. Stephen Harper has declared his government will be introducing “no-nonsense” and “tough on crime and sentencing” legislation that will “teach those criminals a lesson”.

The Legislators in New York look at what Harper is doing and going to do and just shrug their shoulders.

Canada's Conservative government increased the minimum prison time judges must impose for gun crimes. It reintroduced a bill that imposed minimum sentences for a long list of drug crimes. It includes a six-month sentence for someone caught growing even one marijuana plant for trafficking. Critics warn that this approach will not work, will only lead to overcrowding and will have no effect on the crime rate.

“Canadian policy-makers have picked up the cudgel of minimum mandatory sentences at the same time as Americans are trying to extricate themselves from them because they have proven to be so destructive,” says Craig Jones, director of the John Howard Society, which reintegrates inmates in the community.

I agree.

I believe these new “tough on crime” initiatives are just the Harper Conservatives cynical attempt to obfuscate a failed fiscal, foreign and domestic policy that is sinking their popularity.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Big Guy

[Bryan]

If sentences that were thought to be stiff were not deterring crime, they clearly aren't stiff enough.

Besides, people claiming that stiff sentences don't deter crime are flat-out lying. You can cherry pick all the stats you want, but the fact remains that you can't re-offend when you're not on the street. The longer an offender is off the street, the longer we don't have to worry about that guy. I know people working in social services who have clients on their case-loads with HUNDREDS of convictions and counting. You can't re-offend hundreds of times if you aren't out on the street to do it.

Not only is C-10 a good thing, it's only real problem is it doesn't go far enough.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Bryan

[eyeball]

If sentences that were thought to be stiff were not deterring crime, they clearly aren't stiff enough.

True enough I suppose.

Not only is C-10 a good thing, it's only real problem is it doesn't go far enough.

Why is Harper so soft on preventing crime anyway? If I was him and I was charged with the task of stamping out recreational drug use I'd bring back the death penalty, introduce mandatory drug testing and summary execution for failing. 1 strike and you're out.

Supply side prohibition is a complete waste of time so why does Harper insist on being so lame?

[Bryan]

Why is Harper so soft on preventing crime anyway? If I was him and I was charged with the task of stamping out recreational drug use I'd bring back the death penalty, introduce mandatory drug testing and summary execution for failing. 1 strike and you're out.

For recreational personal use, no. Trafficking on the other hand, sounds like a really good idea. Especially if they're selling to kids? Yes, we absolutely should execute those people.

[olpfan1]

For recreational personal use, no. Trafficking on the other hand, sounds like a really good idea. Especially if they're selling to kids? Yes, we absolutely should execute those people.

what about selling junk food to kids? its unhealthy and makes them fat and lazy

off with their heads!

Edited February 23, 2012 by olpfan1

[Bryan]

what about selling junk food to kids? its unhealthy and makes them fat and lazy

off with their heads!

If someone is selling banned junk-food through a network of organized crime, I've yet to hear about it.

[TheNewTeddy]

Deterrence? I do not understand.

[Keepitsimple]

It bears repeating over and over. When it comes to criminality and sentencing, the US is on a different planet. Their incarceration rate is six times that of Canada. With their history of racial strife, inner city decay, elected judges, and indiscriminate sentencing, it is absolutely ludicrous to use the US as an example of "what will happen" here in Canada. However, that won't stop the usual suspects from trying to do so - time and again. Silly people.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Keepitsimple

[cybercoma]

For recreational personal use, no. Trafficking on the other hand, sounds like a really good idea.

You get all pissed because you have to register firearms, but you would give the state the power to deem what drugs are inappropriate and put its own citizens to death for selling them. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies can produce and sell drugs, caffeine and nicotine are demeed legal, and alcohol is a-ok even though it kills more people than any other drug. Thankfully even the Tories aren't this stupid.

[waldo]

It bears repeating over and over. When it comes to criminality and sentencing, the US is on a different planet. Their incarceration rate is six times that of Canada. With their history of racial strife, inner city decay, elected judges, and indiscriminate sentencing, it is absolutely ludicrous to use the US as an example of "what will happen" here in Canada. However, that won't stop the usual suspects from trying to do so - time and again. Silly people.

yes, yes it does bear repeating!

What the heck is your point? I really don't understand. The US incarceration rate is 743 per 100,000. Canada's is 117 per 100,000. The US has

six times

the rate of Canada! There is simply no comparison to how their "justice" system operates. Canadians believe in balance - preventative programs and education - and appropriate sentencing to reflect society's revulsion towards multiple repeat offenders and violent criminals. We're doing fairly well on prevention - but can do better ....but we have become too lax on repeat offenders and violent offenders. It's time to tweak the system a bit to keep that balance.

notwithstanding your past failed MLW history of understanding data/statistics, in this case, you don't even bother to attempt to rationalize the described incarceration rates spread.

The described principal reason the U.S. has such a high incarceration rate is... wait for it... mandatory minimum sentences and the overall length of sentencing. You know, those 2 key drivers behind the Harper Conservatives omnibus Bill C-10? So, as you say, "what the heck is your point"?

[Bryan]

You get all pissed because you have to register firearms, but you would give the state the power to deem what drugs are inappropriate and put its own citizens to death for selling them. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies can produce and sell drugs, caffeine and nicotine are demeed legal, and alcohol is a-ok even though it kills more people than any other drug. Thankfully even the Tories aren't this stupid.

As usual, your post is completely dishonest.

I'm not pissed about registering firearms, I don't even own any.

I would be equally as harsh on anyone selling guns to kids as I would be them selling drugs.

I don't have any problem with an adult using whatever they want.

[PIK]

The longer you are in jail the longer you are not out on the streets breaking the law. But the bill needs some tweaking and it will be. Its seems that harper likes to push it, see how people react and then amend it accordingly.

[waldo]

Its seems that harper likes to push it, see how people react and then amend it accordingly.

cause pre-consultation gets in the way of the King's decrees, hey? In any case, the repeat pattern of public outrage certainly lends itself to a full-blown peasant uprising!

[cybercoma]

I didn't realize the recidivism rate was 100%. Thanks for that revelation, guys.

[cybercoma]

If you skip down to the charts at the bottom of the link below (the rest of it explains why it's difficult to calculate recidivism), you'll note that the vast majority of people that are released from prison do not re-offend. Those re-incarcerated usually are due to "technical violations" of their release. That can range from anything from using a computer, drinking alcohol, having contact with particular individuals, not checking in to a parole officer on time, leaving the country, not going to counselling, etc. It does not mean that they actually re-offended or committed another crime. It means they violated the terms of their release. Those infractions are technically not new commissions of crime. Only a tiny fraction of those released, both in the short-term and long-term according to the information provided by Correctional Service of Canada below. So all of these arguments that people need to be locked away longer, so that they're not committing more crime when released seem to be largely unfounded.

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e053/e053h-eng.shtml

Edited February 23, 2012 by cybercoma

[guyser]

If sentences that were thought to be stiff were not deterring crime, they clearly aren't stiff enough.

Crime is down , has been for awhile. You didnt get the memo?

This bill is full of nonsense. But then again, this govt appears to do nothing based on fact but on optics.

[cybercoma]

Crime is down , has been for awhile. You didnt get the memo?

This bill is full of nonsense. But then again, this govt appears to do nothing based on fact but on optics.

Bryan denies that crime is down. When you make up your own facts, anything is possible.

[waldo]

Bryan denies that crime is down. When you make up your own facts, anything is possible.

clearly MLW member Bryan must be factoring in that Harper Conservative go-to, "unreported crime"!

[guyser]

clearly MLW member Bryan must be factoring in that Harper Conservative go-to, "unreported crime"!

Have we ever seen Bryan and Scotty in the same room? Hmm.....

[Guest Manny]

If a bill like this passes, more people will be sentenced to jail than would have before. People caught growing their own marijuana, for instance. In some cases the judge will assign a different penalty than jail because the person has no prior offenses, and the judge seeks to avoid putting the person who is otherwise non-violent in jail with others, where they might encounter serious criminals. It's already understood that jail "hardens" a person. But not only that. A jail sentence, any jail sentence, leaves the convict with a life-long stigma that cannot be erased. Even a jail term of two years less a day means that the convict will always find it hard to get a decent job. It permanently impairs their future. So even if a person reforms from a crime committed years and years ago, they carry this with them throughout life. That's another factor for why jail should not be sentenced lightly. In our age of information, it's hard to erase your past mistakes.

Along this line I'd like to know what the government is offering in terms of reforms, rehabilitation for prisoners? My understanding is they've cut funding for some programs that were considered to be beneficial toward rehabilitation, favouring the merely punitive measures. All that leaves the person with is mandatory jail, and a life of resentment. And from this the level of crime can only spiral upward.

[g_bambino]

Bill C-10 must be stopped.

I can't see it going terribly far; it seems unconstitutional for a couple of reasons: One, it mandates punnishments with a severity that doesn't match that of the crime; this was noted by a judge in a recent gun crime case. Two, it is a federal law that requires provincial governments to spend money they didn't agree to spend. Why the latter hasn't been the basis for a court case yet, I can't understand.

[olpfan1]

I don't believe the police will enforce the marijuana part of the bill.. If they find 6 pot plants I can see them pretending its just 5...police are not like Harper, I know a few and they don't want to be bothered with marijuana

[Tilter]

True enough I suppose.

Why is Harper so soft on preventing crime anyway? If I was him and I was charged with the task of stamping out recreational drug use I'd bring back the death penalty, introduce mandatory drug testing and summary execution for failing. 1 strike and you're out.

Supply side prohibition is a complete waste of time so why does Harper insist on being so lame?

And

Why is Harper so soft on preventing crime anyway? If I was him and I was charged with the task of stamping out recreational drug use I'd bring back the death penalty, introduce mandatory drug testing and summary execution for failing. 1 strike and you're out.

To me this sounds like the mother of all Mandatory sentences