April 22, 2009
Conservative Justice Minister, Rob Nicholson, defending Bill C-15 at committee. In this clip, Mr. Nicholson refuses to answer a simple question about whether or not he spoke to 2002 Senate Report chair Senator Pierre-Claude Nolin and stonewalls NDP committee member, Libby Davies, when asked to present evidence that mandatory minimum sentences will work for drug crimes.
New Democrat Libby Davies repeatedly grilled [Justice Minister, Rob] Nicholson on whether he has any evidence that minimum mandatory jail terms reduce crime. Ms. Davies cited studies prepared for the Justice Department several years ago showing that automatically jailing drug criminals does nothing to deter crime, as has been shown in the United States.
"Many States are repealing their mandatory minimums," Ms. Davies said.
Mr. Nicholson declined to supply any evidence to the contrary, but he insisted that "we are absolutely convinced in our consultation with Canadians that this is welcomed across the country." More...
This enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to provide for minimum penalties for serious drug offences, to increase the maximum penalty for cannabis (marihuana) production, to reschedule certain substances from Schedule III to that Act to Schedule I, and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. • Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Some of what is proposed in Bill C-26:
One-year mandatory prison sentence for selling marijuana as part of an organized criminal gang or if weapons or violence are involved;
Mandatory two-year sentence for dealing illegal drugs, such as cocaine or methamphetamines, to youth or for dealing near a school or in an area frequented by youth;
Mandatory two-year sentence for operating marijuana grow-ops containing at least 500 plants
The maximum penalty for marijuana production would increase from seven to 14 years;
Tougher penalties for trafficking of date-rape drugs;
Two-year mandatory prison sentence if convicted of dealing hard drugs such as cocaine or heroin.
Department of Justice Canada -
Research and Statistics Division
January 2002
"MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES: Their Effects on Crime, Sentencing Disparities, and Justice System Expenditures" Download the Report (PDF, 1.6M)
Excerpts:
9.5 Mandatory Sentences for Drug (page 30)
"Severe [Mandatory Minimum Sentences] seem to be least effective in relation to drug offences. Studies using a variety of methodologies seriously question the value of the 'drug war' approach."
"Drug consumption and drug-related crime seem to be unaffected, in any measurable way, by severe [Mandatory Minimum Sentences] ."
Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA)
CCLA briefing paper
Re: Mandatory Minimum Jail Sentences
The Canadian Sentencing Commission summarized the Canadian expertise on this issue as follows: “Since 1952, all Canadian commissions that have addressed the role of mandatory minimum penalties have recommended that they be abolished”.
Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Drug Offences:
Why Everyone Loses
There has recently been a movement on the part of the newly elected federal government to consider mandatory sentences and stiff penalties for drug offenders. However, scientific evidence indicates that mandatory minimum sentences only worsen the health-related harms associated with incarceration by increasing the transmission of infectious disease in prisons.
Published On: 2006-05-03
Author: Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network
Topics: Drug Policy and Harm Reduction
Document Type: Briefing Papers
Language: English
Reversing decades of tough-on-crime policies, including mandatory minimum prison sentences for some drug offenders, many cash-strapped states are embracing a view once dismissed as dangerously naive: It costs far less to let some felons go free than to keep them locked up.
...
"You've got two decades of failed policies," said Laura Sager a consultant in Michigan for Families Against Mandatory Minimums. She said mandatory sentencing laws and tough penalties for drug offenses in the 1980s "bloated prisons and prison populations, and the taxpayer is paying a very high price."
The Conservatives are also pushing ahead with Bill C-26 at the very moment the United States is repealing or reforming many of its own mandatory minimum drug penalties, because of mounting evidence that they don't work.The Conservatives are also pushing ahead with Bill C-26 at the very moment the United States is repealing or reforming many of its own mandatory minimum drug penalties, because of mounting evidence that they don't work.
---
The U.S. also has the world's highest per capita rate of incarceration - 751 people in jail for every 100,000 in population - more than Russia at a rate of 627, China at 119, and Canada at 108.
In 2007, the U.S. also passed a sobering milestone: more than one of every 100 adult Americans is now locked up in jail.
Mandatory drug laws contributed to this situation. Since 1980, the number of Americans jailed for drug crimes has soared to 500,000 from about 40,000.
The result is overcrowded prisons and overburdened corrections budgets. But the biggest problem is the failure of such laws to ensnare the criminals they're designed to target - the kingpins and dealers at the top of the drug trade. More...
The Harper government, say critics, are still taking lessons in pursuing a war on drugs from the United States, with all the attendant failings.
“Mandatory minimums have been an unmitigated disaster,” says Eugene Oscapella, an Ottawa lawyer, criminology professor at the University of Ottawa and a founder of the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy (and, he says, not a marijuana smoker). “It boggles my mind that anyone can look to the U.S. as a model for anything except as a colossal failure.”
---
“[Bill C-26 is] a redundant, unnecessary and harmful bill,” says NDP justice critic Libby Davies. “It’s all about optics for the Conservatives…. Prohibition is a failed model. All this bill does is give us the illusion that they’re doing something. It’s a dividing tactic, playing on people’s fears.”
The U.S. drug czar, John Walters, is in Ottawa today, trying his best to put a positive spin on one of the greatest disasters in U.S. foreign and domestic policy. Part of his agenda is to persuade Canada to follow in U.S. footsteps, which can only happen if Canadians ignore science, compassion, health and human rights. More...
Q: Do you think the best approach to drug abuse is...
Treat the use of illegal drugs as an illness and focus on prevention and treatment for addicts
65%
Treat the use of illegal drugs as a crime and get tough on enforcement of drug laws among addicts
35%
Canada not, never was, soft on crime
January 27, 2007 -
Vancouver Sun Despite these sensational anecdotes, however, a review of the evidence reveals that Canada is not, and never has been, soft on crime, that the putative laxity of the criminal justice system is perhaps the most persistent, pervasive and pernicious myth in Canadian society today. more...
Conservative ministers and their aides are consulting with "keen" U.S. government officials on a new national drug strategy, according to internal documents obtained by CanWest.
"There have been various senior-level meetings between U.S. officials and ministers/minister's offices," states a summary of a June 16, 2006, meeting on the Tory drug initiative involving top federal bureaucrats at nine federal departments and agencies.
"U.S. officials have been keen to discuss drug issues with the current government." More...
The Tories apparently ignored the advice from Justice Department lawyers, which was contained in a briefing book for Justice Minister Vic Toews released yesterday through an Access to Information request.
"Research into the effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences has established that they do not have any obvious special deterrent or educative effect and are no more effective than less serious sanctions in preventing crime," said the briefing book.more...
Conservative policymakers have long arugued that minimum sentences are effective deterrents. But the harshness of the penalty is not what deters someone from committing a crime; rather, it's the likelihood of getting caught, says Barry Beyerstein, a member of the Canadian Centre for Drug Policy.
And mandatory minimum sentences are a bad idea on principle. In western legal systems, part of the reason everyone gets their own trial is that the circumstances of individual cases are always unique.
Politicians have no business making pre-ordained decisions on the future of people brought before the courts. A judge who has heard the case from start to finish should be the only person to decide what penalties are appropriate.
Simply put, it's too draconian to pass a law that ignores mitigating circumstances. More...
Critics fear the move is a sign that electioneering and exploiting public fears are taking precedence over common sense and the integrity of the judicial system.
Tony Doob, a professor of criminology at the University of Toronto, called mandatory minimums for gun crimes an "insult" to judges, who are already legally bound to tailor punishments to fit the crime.
"Study after study shows these things have zero impact on crime (but) everybody's looking for a quick fix," said Doob, who added that he's most troubled by politicians who are pretending to make Canada's streets safer.
"They're trying to deceive the public into thinking that they've done something effective. It's just simple dishonesty."More...
Statements by politicians about mandatory minimums
Vic Toews and Irwin Cotler discuss during Question Period (September 27, 2005)
Source: www.victoews.com Mandatory prison sentences for drug dealers and violent offenders
Vic Toews, Conservative Member of Parliament for Provencher (MB) and Official Opposition Justice Critic, rose in the House of Commons today to, once again, call on the Liberal government to introduce mandatory prison sentences for drug dealers and violent offenders. His questions today came on the heels of what were essentially non-answers to similar questions during yesterday’s Question Period.
Transcript:
Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Justice to support mandatory prison sentences for drug dealers, gunmen and other repeat violent offenders. The minister avoided the question and suggested he was looking at tinkering with the provisions governing house arrest. The minister is providing no direction.
Why will the minister not commit to bringing forward mandatory prison sentences for drug dealers, gunmen and other repeat violent offenders so that Canadians can live in safe communities?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we do not need to be lectured by the opposition on safe communities. If the member opposite would just open the Criminal Code and read it for a change, he would find that there are mandatory minimums with respect to the offences of which he is speaking, and if he would look to the south, to which he is always referring, he would see that the American Bar Association just last year recommended to do away with mandatory minimums because they have no effect, they do not deter and they result in unnecessary incapacitation and unnecessary costs to the system without protecting security.
Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, the judges tell us every day in their sentences that is the direction from the minister and his government that requires them to give house arrest. That is the minister’s direction. Other overwhelming evidence from jurisdictions has demonstrated that mandatory sentences for violent offenders have substantially reduced crimes in large cities, yet despite the evidence the minister stated that mandatory prison sentences do not work.
Given the absolute failure of the minister’s strategy, why does he not adopt a new one?
Hon. Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, one difference between myself and the hon. member opposite is that I have read the evidence and he is making up the evidence.
"Mandatory minimums are neither a deterrent nor effective," Cotler told The Sun editorial board Tuesday. "I will not be pressured into legislating because of the politics of the moment -- and I will not be intimidated into changing my principles. I said they are wrongheaded as a matter of policy and suspect as a matter of law . . . They are not effective, even though that is counterintuitive."
Libby Davies, NDP Spokesperson for Drug Policy
November 28, 2007
"The reality is that mandatory minimums do not deter organized crime. Instead, they affect almost exclusively the small dealers, street traffickers, and non-violent offenders while leaving the door open for organized crime to step in and fill the void created at the lower levels. Mandatory Minimums for drug sentences increase enforcement costs exponentially, and the burden on the criminal justice and prisons systems is great."
[excerpt]
Overall Concerns:
There is no proof that mandatory minimums are effective and appropriate measures to reduce drug use and crimes related to drugs. Most evidence shows the opposite.
C-26 does not address the core issue of why people use drugs.
C-26 increases already imbalanced and over-funded enforcement approach to drug use in Canada without reducing crime rates or drug use.
Abandons successful measures such as harm reduction and grass roots education programs.
Moves toward expensive, failed US style war on drugs that spends tens of billions a year on enforcement and incarceration while crime rates and drug use soar.
Leads to greater incarceration rates and greater burden on courts, police, and prisons.
The Bill leaves it open for enforcement to go after the low level dealers and marijuana infractions (The selling of one joint or growing one plant could constitute trafficking) .
Current waiting lists for drug treatment beds is from months to years, depending on the city and region, Drug Treatment Courts will only serve to put more people on a waiting list.
Marijuana Growth in BC by Dr. Stephen T. Easton, Fraser Institute
Prohibition funds Organized Crime, Legalization nets BC $2 Billion in additional tax, Marijuana worth $7 Billion in BC every year www.fraserinstitute.org/COMMERCE.WEB/product_files/Marijuana.pdf
Cannabis prohibition is expensive, ineffective, and causing significant harms to Canadian society.
For the good of all Canadians, it's time to end cannabis prohibition.
It's time for Canada to become the world leader in rational cannabis policy.
Don't vote for politicians who choose to ignore the significant harms that result from cannabis prohibition.
version of
For Canada's sake, download - print - distribute - inform:
