CRIME AND POLITICS

The essential thing to bear in mind when examining the Harper
government's policies on crime is that they are not about crime. They
are about politics.

I do not write this lightly. People generally believe what they say
they believe. If the Tories say they believe their policies are
important and necessary for the public good, we should take them at
their word -- unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Since
taking power, in part thanks to tough talk on crime, the Harper
government has consistently introduced small, cheap, crowd-pleasing
reforms at the most politically opportune moments. It has passed
redundant laws. It has passed laws it knows will be struck down by
the courts. It has delayed passing popular bills, preferring to keep
them handy for the next political opportunity. And, most tellingly,
it has refused to make serious and substantial changes that wouldn't
be so politically sexy -- tackling the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act, for example.

So we should be suspicious about the government's announcement that
it will eliminate so-called sentencing discounts for time served
awaiting trial.

Is it broadly popular? Absolutely. Will it please the Conservatives'
disgruntled base? Certainly. Will it make streets safer or the
justice system more just? Not in the slightest.

It's just another small, cheap, crowd-pleaser tossed out to score
political points.

That's not to say there's no issue here. In fact, there's is a huge
issue involved. But the Tories' plan to forbid judges from allowing
two-for-one or three-for-one discounts -- meaning a month spent in
jail awaiting trial would count for two or three months against the
final sentence -- doesn't come close to touching it.

Let's start at the beginning: Every person accused of a crime is
considered innocent until proven guilty. And we do not put innocent
people in jail.

This is the origin of bail. If you are charged, you have a right to
go free on bail, unless and until you are convicted at trial.

Sometimes this right must be curtailed, however, such as in cases
where the accused clearly poses a threat to the safety of others. So
someone accused of a crime may end up sitting in jail, awaiting his
day in court. If he is convicted, it only makes sense that the time
he spent incarcerated awaiting trial should count against his
sentence. He was in jail, after all.

But why should he get a discount? Why should the month he spent in
jail count as two months -- even three -- against his sentence?

It doesn't make any sense. Surely, this is just our ridiculously soft
justice system finding another way to coddle criminals -- and the
Harper government should be applauded for eliminating it.

On the surface, yes. But dig even a little deeper -- something the
Harper government never bothers to do -- and the reality looks very different.

"Many of the institutions used to house those awaiting trial are old
and poorly equipped. Sanitation and living conditions are primitive.
Segregation is difficult, and security conditions designed to meet
the requirements of the most difficult inmates must apply to all.
This means that security in these institutions often exceeds that in
institutions housing the convicted. Little is available in the way of
programs. Problems of segregation and classification make even work
or recreational programs difficult to organize."

That passage comes from the Ouimet Report of 1969, but don't think
it's outdated. If anything, the situation is worse today.

That's because, since the 1980s, the number of people remanded in
custody has grown rapidly. So has the time spent in remand.

In 2005, the number of people incarcerated while awaiting trial
surpassed the number serving sentences in all provincial jails
combined. The remand population is growing so rapidly, it is now 25
per cent bigger than the population doing time in provincial jails.

In the latest StatsCan report, which only goes up to 2006, the number
of inmates who spend a week or less in remand has fallen from 62 per
cent to 54 per cent. Those who spent three or more months in remand
rose from four per cent to seven per cent.

As a result, remand facilities tend to be overcrowded, filthy, tense,
warehouses where inmates sit and stare at the walls 24 hours a day
with no idea how long they'll be there. The older facilities are the
worst but newer jails aren't much better. I've been inside the
toughest maximum security prisons in Canada and the United States and
Ontario's new Maplehurst jail and remand facility is as locked-down
and scary as any of them.

Very simply, remand is hell. And that is why, so the argument goes,
time incarcerated awaiting trial counts for more than regular time served.

But notice that the core issue here is not the sentence discount.
It's that far too many people are spending far too long in remand:
Bring people to trial swiftly and everything else is moot.

So why aren't the Conservatives talking about how to unclog the
arteries of the justice system and make it work better? Because
that's administrative reform.

No one gets excited about administrative reform. The media don't
cover it. Crowds don't cheer it. And most importantly, people do not
vote for administrative reform.

But denouncing the soft-touch justice system? Railing against
criminal-coddling judges? Promising to get "tough" and deliver "truth
in sentencing"?

Oh yes. That works.

Oh, it may not work in the sense of making streets safer or the
justice system more just. But it sure is good politics -- and, as I
said, that's what the Harper government crime policies are all about.