Government to Make Communities Safer

[FiveParadox]

Today, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P., the Member for Calgary Southwest and the Prime Minister of Canada announced that his Government of Canada would be moving to introduce and pass some comprehensive changes to the administration of justice in Canada. Among these changes, Mr. Harper wishes to:

• impose minimum prison sentences for serious crimes;
• discontinue house arrest and conditional sentences; and
• raise the age of consent to sixteen years of age.

Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper[/color], P.C., M.P.,]Tackling crime is critical because it is becoming increasingly clear that rising levels of gun, gang and drug crime are not just a series of tragic, random events. Organized criminal enterprise is fuelling much of the crime problem. Most importantly, we will work to safeguard the Canadian way of life by tackling the growing problem of gun, gang and drug crime.

Click here to read the entire statement in English.
Cliquetez içi pour lire le communiqué entier en français.

:arrow: My Opinion on Minimum Sentences for Serious Crimes

I would approach this subject with extreme caution. While I recognize that some would contend that current sentences are not stringent enough, in terms of imprisoning offenders, I would suggest that we should not impede the capacity for the courts to administer justice as they deem appropriate, within the sphere of the range of sentences. Therefore, I would think that imposing minimum sentences should only be exercised for the most serious of crimes, where the legislation imposes such a minimum sentence in the interest of protecting society (as opposed to just punishing the offender).

:arrow: My Opinion on Terminating House Arrest and Conditional Sentences

I do not support this measure of Mr. Harper's agenda; I would suggest that to end house arrest, and other sentences such as that, would not take into account the fact that each and every crime that comes before the courts is unique, and that the same sentence may not be appropriate for every occurrence. We should not restrict the right of the judiciary to administer justice (such is not the job of the House of Commons). Rather, perhaps we could introduce legislation that would "guide" sentencing; for example, a measure could enact that a crime involving a gun, takes sentencing precedence over a crime involving a less dangerous weapon.

:arrow: My Opinion on Raising the Age of Consent

I can understand the sentiment behind attempting to raise the age of consent; however, I would suggest that it wouldn't change anything to enact such a measure. Nina Grewal, M.P., the Member for Fleetwood—Port Kells attempted to pass legislation to this effect during the Thirty-eighth Parliament of Canada, and was defeated by votes on both sides of the House. I would suggest that such a measure would likely not pass the House during this session, either. In my opinion, raising the age of consent to sixteen would serve no purpose other than to damage legitimate relationships.

:?: Sources
1. Click here for the Web site of the Office of the Prime Minister of Canada.

 

[JonB2004]

RE: Government to Make Co

What is the age of consent?

 

[FiveParadox]

At present, the age of consent is fourteen years.

However, you may engage in a sexual relationship with someone under the age of fourteen, provided that you are within two years of their age (I suppose this is to facilitate legitimate relationships between younger teenagers).

 

[JonB2004]

RE: Government to Make Co

I support Harper's idea to impose minimum prison sentences on serious crimes. But I think they should impose them on all crimes.

I support Harper's idea to eliminate house arrest and conditional sentences.

And I support raising the age of consent to 16. Too many young people are having sex.

 

[Alberta'sfinest]

RE: Government to Make Co

The age of consent is 14. It was lowered a few years back because enraged parents were having men charged with statuatory rape for dating their willing daughters. Most of the cases were thrown out when legitimate, but it cost money and wasted court time in a system that is already bogged down.
In my opinion, harsher sentences will only make minor criminals more violent as stakes are raised for their actions. The problem isn't that the sentences aren't harsh enough, it's that police forces are underfunded and too small to deal with all the crime present in our communities. Criminals aren't afraid of the sentences because they know that they're isn't enough manpower to make all the arrests necessary to deal with crime properly. They're just gambling based on the odds of how many offenders are busted compared to those who aren't.

We need to restructure and re-evaluate the effectiveness of laws and policing methods, cut our losses where we're losing and impliment a better strategy for crimes that need to be stopped. This is simply what happens when you set up a flawed system, it fails and you end up having to give up on some things, like the drug war and prostitution.