But by and large, we seem to find more humor than outrage in these crimes. In part, this simply reflects the nature of our criminal justice system, which has become decreasingly rehabilitative and increasingly retributive.
Indeed. I'm not sure if anyone has been able to tell from the subjects I like to blog about, but I think that justice and prison reform should be one of the most pressing political issues of the day. If I were a politician I would be pushing it as one of my highest priorities. For me, it all goes back to thinking about what our objectives our with respect to the criminal justice system. Is our objective to promote a peaceful, law abiding, socially adjusted populace? Or is it just to feel momentarily good about the revenge we are inflicting on people who break the law? From a public policy perspective the obvious answer is the former. So, off the top of my head, here are some of my specific proposals for justice reform:
1) Decriminalize and regulate (and tax) all drugs. What are now illegal narcotics should be treated in two ways depending on their addictive nature (to be determined through an open and scientific regulatory structure). Non-addictive drugs should be regulated in a way that is similar to alcohol or tobacco. Production or sale of these drugs outside the regulatory regime should be result in strictly regulatory (i.e. non-criminal) fines and punishments. We should prohibit the production and import of addictive drugs. Again, the result of production or importation should be a regulatory, non-criminal punishment. Simple possession of prohibited addictive drugs should be dealt with in specialized statutory drug courts whose sole purpose should be proper medical treatment of addiction.
2) Prostitution should be legalized and a special tribunal created to adjudicate disputes arising out of legal prostitution. The tribunal should place special emphasis on the privacy of the women involved in prostitution and the prevention of exploitation.
3) Both general and specific deterrence should be removed from the Criminal Code as factors for judges to consider in sentencing. Judges should be directed through statute to consider more alternative, non-penal sentencing options and to take specific consideration of the offenders social and economic background, and the influence of addictive drugs on the commission of the offense.
4) Amend s. 24 of the Charter to include an independent, Constitutional, tortious cause of action against law enforcement agencies for Charter violations.
5) Create an independent body to consider new, exculpatory evidence at a lower legal threshold than is currently applied.
6) Massively increase funding for addiction harm-reduction programs (like Insite in Vancouver) and mental health resources.
Feel free to add to my list. These are just off-the-cuff proposals mostly.
Update: Some other points that go to access to our legal system.
7) Create a single-payer, optional, government administered legal insurance regime.
8) Extend legal aid services to included everyone charged with a criminal offense of any kind.
9) Increase the maximum value of claims in small claims courts; give small claims judges wider statutory discretion to settle claims on equitable outcomes (in order to dull the disadvantage of self-represented litigants); allow awarding of full costs.
2 comments:
I agree with a lot of these points, particularly the ones concerning access to the legal system. I also agree about drug policy reform and think it's long overdue. But, being the heartless conservative that I am, I can't say I'm on board with your #3: removing deterrence as a factor in sentencing. I see where you're going with the rationale, but what about in cases of smaller crimes like theft? Seems to me that there are certain crimes where deterrence is an acceptable factor if it is used reasonably.
Also, can't say I agree that consideration should be given to the social or economic status or the sobriety of the offender. I realize that fixing any crime problem requires addressing the circumstances that drive someone to commit crimes in the first place, but I do not think that those circumstances make a crime anymore "okay" to commit. And, as I mentioned earlier, I'm all for drug reform - every person should have the right to put whatever they want into their bodies. But as such, they must also take the responsibility for it, and if someone murders someone in the middle of a really bad acid trip then I don't think they're any less responsible for the crime they committed.
blarg!
Interesting points, both of you. The fine point on why it'll take at least 50 years to get to anything resembling what you've put forth is that the system currently lacks elegance. And by this I mean that the whole legal and prison admin system seems completely band-aided together, and as a result, trying to put in place the necessary system for administering the law in a just and humane way--i.e. by decriminalizing drugs and other related offences and creating a seperate court whose sole purpose is dictating treatment requirements--would require an incredible fine-tooth-comb-picking job to sort through.
As for your point, Mike, about deterrence, I agree and disagree. When I was a kid, the law scared the lesson into me that you shouldn't steal. Then, when I was 17 and feeling hotter than shit and like I was immortal--that is to say, i was a normal 17 year old--I stole. The security guards caught me and my friend, took us to "the office" and were threatening to call the cops. I cried. They let us go. I haven't stolen since and am ashamed of myself for doing it then, but I'd wager that the majority of non-drug-related theft occurs with this age group. And the law holds no currency them.
Regarding socio-economic factoring in sentencing, I think the greater question a judge should consider is not the individual's status, but the affect of that act on the community. Theft, for example, has little affect on Walmart, but it does affect its customers (aka the community), who must pay higher prices because the company has factored in its losses from average annual theft into the price of its goods. As a corporation, they'd be crazy not to. There's that. But theft to a small ma 'n pa shop affects the owners directly, specifically in their capacity to grow their business. This can result in fewer jobs available to the community. Again, the community is hurt by the act of the individual.
Yes, okay, Jean Val Jean needed the loaf of bread to feed his daughter but by stealing it he betrayed the community's trust and affected the ability of the shop owner to grow his business. He could have just asked.
Oh what a wicked circle... because if Jean Val Jean had been properly cared for by his community, he wouldn't have had to betray it.
(By the way, Les Miserables is a must read, and perhaps one of my favourite books of all time. A great read for anyone interested in 18th cent. prison reform)
I want to say more, but work calls... To be continued.
Post a Comment