Yesterday the Conservatives announced more stringent minimum sentences for gang-related activities, including a minimum four year sentence for merely firing a gun during a drive-by shooting. It also wants to introduce harder sentences for selling drugs related to gang operations. The opposition parties have said they'll go along but they want more done.
There is no question in my mind that we should be getting tough on organized and gangland crime, and for those who commit the crimes they should do the time. But once again, we're throwing a sledgehammer without attempting to deal with some of the root causes. There are kingpins who are incorrigible but many people turn to crime because they have no alternative means of making an income -- that doesn't make it right, of course; but it's like the old story about a man stealing bread to feed his family. Should he get the same punishment for doing the right thing as someone who steals a million bucks from his employees' pension fund?
It is good to see that first time offenders will have the option of going to drug treatment -- but kind of programs will be developed?
There's no mention of ending the two-for-one credit suspects get on sentences for pre-conviction custody. Some cases take so long to get to trial that the sentence is time served. Not acceptable.
Finally, what about fixing the "Broken Windows"? This is a bold and proven strategy to reducing gang activity, albeit a bit controversial. Why won't the Conservatives at least give it a try -- it's not like no one has tried it anyway. So once again, it's tough on crime, but not tough on the causes of crime. Cracking down on the latter is not a conservative or liberal issue -- it's a Canadian issue.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
4 comments:
There is no evidence that the prospect of death or prison deters the gang members in anyway. Worse there is evidence that getting tough on drug crime, makes things worse. Prison encourages gang membership. Indeed, in many parts of the world you need to be gang member in order to survive prison. Take the example of Brazil. Inmates join the gangs, e.g., Sau Paulo’s PCC, for protection. The gang charges an entrance fee which the inmate has to work off by doing the gang’s bidding when he is on the outside. If the inmate does not follow through, he and his family are in trouble. That is how a gang grows from a couple of dozen members to one that is thousands strong. If memory serves me right they PCC has over 40,000 members.
Of course the problem is not isolated to connections a prisoner makes on the inside. Someone who goes away for a long stint has no savings, no job contacts a huge hole in their resume when they get out and that is just the beginning. Ex cons are hardly in high demand and someone who is on parole has limited freedom of movement; they can not always go to where the jobs are. Not surprisingly many ex cons return to criminality as means of trying to support themselves; what was once a choice morphs into a necessity. If you get a critical mass of these ex cons in particular area, then it becomes particularly difficult to root out the problem. This is especially so if, as is often the case, the drug trade in that area is controlled by a particular ethnic group or groups. Not only does proximity play a role but then so too does family and ethnic ties.
To add insult to injury is that so called successes in the drug war often result in violence; associates or rival gangs seek to fill the vacuum caused by a major drug bust and subsequent arrests.
Finally, prograting the drug trade is hugely expensive. Much of made of the cost of mandatory minimums drug sentences, the very thing the Conservatives are so high on, and the policing costs generally. Prison costs in the US are approaching the amount spent on post secondary education. However, court costs are also enormous. There is huge volume of drug charges and the number of drug crimes is skyrocketing. If memory serves the number of drug crimes as gone up 55% since 1994. Moroever, drug dealers and people charged with impaired driving are generally the only kinds of criminals with any money.
“Prosecutorial discretion” has been a God sent. Without it BC,s court system might litterally have gone to pot long ago. The marijuana industry is of such a size in BC that the province has decided that pursuing each and every case may lead to the complete breakdown of the justice system. Other provinces will soon experience similar problems and so do not be surprised to see other provinces introduce measures that will allow them “prosecutorial discretion”. Quebec will likely be the first. Production in Quebec has surpassed production in BC. The marijuana industry there is growing like a weed.
If Canada were to legalize marijuana, the gang world would down size. There would simply not be the need for that many members. Members who ended up in jail or are dead or who simply moved on would not be replaced as fast as they once were. More importantly, the market would not be large enough for fledgling groups to build up enough capital, cache and connections to survive.
It's a multi-pronged issue, and we have to attack it from all sides. As for legalization of THC -- it may be a necessary evil, but it is something worth considering, since we do tax and regulate alcohol and tobacco.
including a minimum four year sentence for merely firing a gun during a drive-by shooting.
hahaha. Sorry I had to laugh when I read this gem. A four year mandatory minimum for firing a gun during a drive by probably isnt going to deal with the problem; but I certainly wouldnt use the word "merely".
Four years is nowhere near a deterrent -- and the fact is, we're never going to break the backs of the gangs until we break the law of silence that exists in all cultural groups.
Post a Comment