Guilty Until Proven Innocent
From today's Globe And Mail:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper took a page out of tough U.S. justice legislation yesterday by announcing that his government will introduce a three-strikes law to force repeat violent and sexual offenders to justify why they should not be locked away indefinitely.Ah, so this is what Harper meant by "get tough on crime." Let's take a look at what this would mean.
First, it's a strike against that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing we like to value. The accused would be responsible for proving that they're not a danger to society, instead of leaving that responsibility with the crown to prove that they are. Call me old-fashioned, but I like the presumption of innocence. (Just so everyone knows what a radical I am, I'm also a fan of habeas corpus.)
Some of you may not be convinced that that's a big problem, since we are talking about third-time offenders of violent and sexual crimes. Fine. So then, this plan would at least reduce crime, right?
Wrong. From the same article:
[The announcement] was resoundingly panned by justice experts who say similar measures south of the border have proved ineffective in reducing crime...The California law caused an increase in the state prison population of 17.7 per cent between 1993 and 2002 while the crime rate dropped more slowly than that of other states, such as New York, where there was no three-strikes law.Oh, ok. So we'll have a bigger prison population, more crime than we would otherwise, and fewer liberties.
Also, according to both Harper and my rudimentary understanding of the fact that jails cost money, it'll cost more.
One other quote from the article really struck me, "Mr. Harper said his government is answering a call from Canadians who believe the country is not as safe as it once was." The key word there, of course, is believe, since crime is actually on the decline in Canada.
There was a telling moment in a recent Toronto municipal campaign town hall broadcast on CBC, when a reporter asked the council candidates to explain why they thought Canadians felt less safe, when in fact they were more safe. The candidates' answers were regrettably predictable; they didn't even understand the question. They just went on and on about how we have to get tough on crime, whatever that means, as politicians tend to do.
I think I've figured out where we got the idea that we shouldn't feel safe. And I think I know who benefits.
3 Comments:
Call me when your child is the fourth victem of a pedophile, much like what happened in Saskatchewan and tell me again how they are "innocent until proven guilty". We are not talking about innocent people here, we are talking about keeping repeat violent offenders off the streets. I fail to see the arguement. When a pedophile such as Whitmore has spent less than two years in prison , his second offence was a multiple, but thanks to Canadian law can only be tried as one, why should this man be free.
He has continuously refused treatment, and sees nothing wrong with his sexual preference. THESE are the people we are talking about, these are not innocent people. When it comes to guys like Whitemore, any more than two strikes is one too many.
But feel free to let them loose on your own children by all means....
I'd prefer if Canada looked to the treason that some of Harper's MP's have visited on Canada by attending the secret Banff meeting about unifying Canada's "security" issues than for Toews to be touting some candy law like this.
This whole law and order progrom is a sop, something to distract law abiding Canadians from the real treachery taking place in our own country to effect integration of three countries into on.
Harper wants to be King, but he'll settle for governor of the next State.
I am all in favour of law and order identifying, rectifying and possibly ostracising (imprisoning) of gross offenders. However, I still believe it is up to the State (Canada is this case at this date) to prove that the person in question is unfit to walk freely among Canadian citizens.
There is no doubt that offenders and pedophiles need to be dealt with. Canadians must remember that these convicted pedophiles or other criminals must be treated fairly under Canadian law which is generally up to the task when prosecuted vigorously.
Canada does not need a new criminal law requiring a person to prove they are NOT guilty. If such a law had been in place, where would our own innocent, jailed and ultimately freed people be now?
I'm not talking Arar here. But his case is a prime example.
What if Arar had been charged with proving he did nothing wrong?
This is a stupid law, designed to attract stupid people to its cause, and to ensnare many innocent people to bolster the billions to be set aside for prison housing while letting the actual perpetrators of crimes go free.
Dazz: At the risk of sounding flip, maybe you stopped reading before the part about how the evidence shows that laws like this actually retard the reduction of crime. If there was evidence that this would actually prevent crime we could have that debate, but there isn't. The other problem with the emotional argument, "what if it was your kid," is that it can be applied beyond all reason. As for someone like Whitmore, I didn't say don't jail him, I said that it's up to the crown to prove he's a danger to society. Sounds like that shouldn't be a problem, so your example is moot.
Anonymous: See also this post.
Post a Comment
<< Home