Is Blatchford right?
In a sense perhaps.
But not because Canadian criminal sentences are generally low -- they aren't.
And not because Canada has just now grown up -- Vimy Ridge did that long ago.
But one aspect of today's terrorism cases is very clear. Sentences for terrorism related crimes will be very long. And that has the effect of separating those involved from society.
In the case of a dedicated terrorist separation is necessary for the protection of society. Deterrence is a farce -- those prepared to die for their (twisted) beliefs will not be deterred. Rehabilitation doesn't work. But separation is effective. So in that way Blatchford is right.
CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
As someone smarter than me remarked upon reading the slew of newly released terrorism judgments from the Ontario Court of Appeal, this young country just did a whole lot of growing up.
In a series of six linked decisions, the highest court in the province dramatically upped the sentences for three convicted Canadian terrorists (to life in prison, in the case of Ottawa's Momin Khawaja) and urged judges to ditch their "business as usual" approach with terrorists.
More than that, the decisions in total reflect a hardnosed realpolitik remarkable in a country where sentences rarely match the judicial thunder that often precedes them.
http://bit.ly/g838N4
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
4 comments:
"Rehabilitation doesn't work."
Not that I disagree with you but has anyone really tried? I personally think that there are a lot of criminals who cannot be rehabilitated and I am not sure that they are worth the risk either way. Still, it's just a little strange to see a Liberal use a sentence like that in regards to anyone, and especially such "naive" young boys as the Toronto terrorist cell had.
Rat,
Very good point. In fact I believe rehabilitation CAN work -- and you hit the nail on the head by saying it hasn't been tried. But rehabilitation will take money and effort lightyears beyond what we have in prisons. So you are right.
james
I think her use of the term "growing up" was in the recognition that terrorism is a real threat.
The arguement is that Canadians (and their intstitutions)are ignorantly unaware that there is real potential of massive deaths in our cities by terrorists. This ruling seems to indicate that we are beginning to get it.
I am not saying I agree with everything there but that is her point. We are complacent on security, especially in our cities,eg. subways etc.
Post a Comment