- Ignatieff should be implementing his own “Getting tough on Cons” policy (‘Cons’ = ‘The Harper Gang’).
submitted to: Toronto Star, "Liberal revolt", 5 June.'09, Susan Delacourt
http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2009/06/liberal-revolt.html
If mandatory jail sentences do not reduce the frequency of the crime, then not only is there no point, it is counter-productive. It is very expensive and amounts to little more than a mandatory 2 year stint at Con U (for clarification, here ‘Con U’ refers to ‘Convict’s University’ - i.e. the converting of those convicted into hardened criminals while in prison and their learning how to do it right the next time - and not, say, the Conservative election camp) . Harper and the Cons ought to present the evidence to show that this policy is effective in reducing crime.
Harper and the Con’s mantra is “getting tough on crime”. But, how, exactly is Bill C-15 doing it. It may be getting tough on the criminals – i.e. those who are convicted of committing such crimes. But where is the empirical connection between that and getting tough on ‘crime’. When you consider that the evidence apparently in the US is that these measures don’t work then the onus is even more on Harper and the Cons to produce the underlying evidence in support. Otherwise, one can conclude little more than this is being done for the optics, comparable to reducing the GST by 2%. We all, as Canadians, ought to be demanding this of Harper, and not just Ignatieff and the Liberals. It is a question of integrity.
Clearly in the next election Harper and the Cons will be referring to their “tough on crime” stance and it may be very difficult for Ignatieff to say “where’s the proof” at that time. Ignatieff should be implementing his own “getting tough on Cons” policy and now.
http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2009/06/liberal-revolt.html
If mandatory jail sentences do not reduce the frequency of the crime, then not only is there no point, it is counter-productive. It is very expensive and amounts to little more than a mandatory 2 year stint at Con U (for clarification, here ‘Con U’ refers to ‘Convict’s University’ - i.e. the converting of those convicted into hardened criminals while in prison and their learning how to do it right the next time - and not, say, the Conservative election camp) . Harper and the Cons ought to present the evidence to show that this policy is effective in reducing crime.
Harper and the Con’s mantra is “getting tough on crime”. But, how, exactly is Bill C-15 doing it. It may be getting tough on the criminals – i.e. those who are convicted of committing such crimes. But where is the empirical connection between that and getting tough on ‘crime’. When you consider that the evidence apparently in the US is that these measures don’t work then the onus is even more on Harper and the Cons to produce the underlying evidence in support. Otherwise, one can conclude little more than this is being done for the optics, comparable to reducing the GST by 2%. We all, as Canadians, ought to be demanding this of Harper, and not just Ignatieff and the Liberals. It is a question of integrity.
Clearly in the next election Harper and the Cons will be referring to their “tough on crime” stance and it may be very difficult for Ignatieff to say “where’s the proof” at that time. Ignatieff should be implementing his own “getting tough on Cons” policy and now.
posted by wlloydm at
9:15 AM
<< Home