The Prime Minister used a Saskatchewan stop yesterday to promise a crackdown on conditional sentences and house arrest. It was the second straight day of Conservative justice reform proposals that many criminologists say will increase prison costs and do nothing to deter crime.
"We're listening to ordinary people," Harper said in rebuttal to the body of academic research.
I know this is an election and much of what is being said is pure politics, but seriously, does Harper really mean that he is prepared to ignore people who know what they are talking about in favour of "ordinary people"? "Ordinary people" do not have the knowledge necessary to, for examine, rebuild an automobile engine -- do we go to them for auto repairs? Since when do we rebut academic research with gut feelings?
Certainly there are political slants to crime fighting -- and being tough on crime may be the right approach -- but policies should be based on evidence and not on emotions.
5 comments:
Harper has been given advice by police, the courts, criminalogists, and others who use facts to justify Harper's position.
Violent youth crime is up 30% since 1991.
That's a fact from Statistics Canada.
Morton, are you ignoring the facts again?
>>but policies should be based on evidence and not on emotions<<
Oh puhhhhlease.... are you quite certain you're a lawyer? The last time I looked, judges in our criminal and civil courts often make decisions based on the following criteria:
1) How big is the line up outside judges chambers this morning?
2) What's the balance of probabilities this witness and or litigant is dirtbag?
3) Digestive Jurispurdence - yeah, I got a lot of evidence in front of me but really, this decision is more about how well lunch is digesting in my stomach.
4) Judges are sooooo utterly desensitized to the human component of law, particularly family law, they pidgeon hole litigants based on cases that sound like the one they're hearing.
5) Judge has a supervising judge who is leaning on said judge and telling him or her - "let's go, you're taking too long with your cases, your courtoom is backed up - hurry the hell up and clear the back log.
6) Dear God, ANOTHER pro-se litigant????
I work in the justice system. I work in a court. I work with judges - about ten of them actually. I hear them say stuff like this EVERY BLOODY DAY. I see the lawyers high five each other after litigating, each claiming their client is utterly retarded, while their clients are left to foot the bill.
Shouldn't the justice system function according to the evidence as opposed to emotions? Why should we expect evidence as it relates to developing public policy when those who enact and enforce policy (ie) laws) treat the system like it's one big sausage mill.
You know I'm right. You've seen it. You're a lawyer. I see it every bloody day at Queen's Bench.
As with Nuclear Safety, food safety, GST cuts, crime and many other issues Harper's motto is obviously:
"Experts? We don't need no stinkin experts!"
well, i will admit i have seen judicial decisions that are based on expediency and gut reaction. that's why we need real policies that work -- like mandatory drug treatment, like prisons that are not awash in heroin. i believe in sentencing people to long terms IF THAT WILL DO SOME GOOD. our entire system is dysfunctional and needs major overhaul but that's why we need people with expertise to help fix it. we don't need more of the same -- which is what's proposed -- we need a new vision -- and, even though i am a PROUD liberal i can't say any party has taken up this challenge.
>>even though i am a PROUD liberal i can't say any party has taken up this challenge.<<
It is systemic both in the justice system but also in our political system. The Tories have tried to address issues relating to the overall dysfunction of our criminal justice system and they're attacked for it - yet the bigger issue is the problem of administration of justice. Make no mistake, while Harper's desire to do away with provisions of existing young offender legislation, I suspect there is widespread support for this AND for an overhaul of the entire justice system. Moreover, I think we need government regulation of lawyers in this country because your industry has priced itself beyond that which the average person can pay. The CBA's response? More government funding for legal aid - NOT, "we should make ourselves more affordable."
This has happened because of the corporatization of lawyering in Canada - you know it and I know it.
And make no mistake, lawyering might be a profession, but it is also an industry - moreover, it's retail! You might disagree with this sentiment, but the fact is, people shop for a lawyer based on price and you guys have made yourselves too expensive for those needing access to the justice system. Yet, your industry SCREAMS that it should regulate private paralegal firms even though it is BECAUSE of the cost of access to justice that paralegals put out a shingle. It is because of the cost of access to justice that more than 62% of litigants in Provincial Court and Queen's Bench in my province are pro-se.
Oh and finally - there's a lot of lawyers in government. Change is a bitch when those who make the laws come from a system that is badly broken and in need of repair.
Look for more populist stuff on justice coming from Tories. Populist stuff resonates with voters because they see the system is broken and taking a populist stand exists as a result of their level of frustration with how messed up things truly are.
Post a Comment