Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Thursday, November 03, 2011

Crime and the provinces

The provinces are right: It is unfair for the federal government to follow its own unsupported whims on crime and then make the provincial governments pay the bill


Generally speaking, the level of government that enacts legislation should bear the political burden of raising the taxes necessary to pay for it. That isn't always practical in a federal system, which is one reason we have transfer payments. While the federal government amends the Criminal Code and similar laws, the provinces run some of the courts and correctional facilities. Any offenders sentenced to less than two years serve their time in provincial prisons.

Provincial facilities also house people on remand - those who have not yet been acquitted or convicted. In fact, of all the people in custody in Canada, 58 per cent are now awaiting trial or sentencing; those serving sentences are in the minority. This is a recent development, and it could get worse if the court system gets further clogged.

That could be one result of the federal Conservative push for more mandatory minimum sentences, which might discourage plea bargaining. That puts a burden on the courts, on the legal aid system and on jails. If the mandatory minimums have their intended effect, some criminals will be in custody longer, which will also crowd provincial facilities. Many of the new or extended mandatory minimums that the Conservatives propose are for less than two years.

No one seems to have a dollar figure yet for what the omnibus crime bill would cost the provinces - never mind a figure broken down province by province. But it seems a fair bet that there will be a cost, and a significant one.

The Conservatives, for their part, argue that they've already increased transfer payments to the provinces, but that was never intended to cover the costs of the omnibus crime bill. They also argue that crime costs society, but that's neither here nor there if their proposed changes don't significantly decrease crime - and it's hard to see how they will. If the Conservatives can make a solid case that the mere fact of locking criminals away for a few more months or years will incapacitate them to a degree sufficient to save provincial economies enough money to compensate for the added costs to the court and correctional systems, they should make it now. If they can't put that math on the table, they owe it to the provinces to at least have a discussion about fair sharing of the costs.

It's hard to see how the provinces can escape paying those costs if the federal government proves intransigent on this, but it would be unjust and unwise for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to let this issue fester.

Origin
Source: Ottawa Citizen 

No comments:

Post a Comment