Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

FELDSTED -- The Liberals took the wrong road, not the long road


Shortly after tabling legislation to repeal a number of mandatory minimum sentences — and to allow for more conditional sentences for offenders who don’t pose a threat to the public — Justice Minister David Lametti declared that the Liberal government was “turning the page on a failed Conservative criminal justice policy.”


Turning a page on Conservative-era justice policy is no insignificant step, even if it took the Liberals five and a half years to take it.

 CLICK HERE to read the full CBC News story by Aaron Wherry

 

 

Minimum sentences are the only means for our government to draw a line that says do not commit these offences against our society as it will not be tolerated.

The Liberals took the wrong road, not the long road.

The Liberals ducked the issue and wrote a script for a play that does not exist. Whoever came up with the meme that minorities are over represented in prisons merits an award for fiction. We don’t elect people to prison, nor do we extend invitations.

People have to be found guilty of a crime in a court and sentenced to prison by a judge. That is where the problems lay. Many minority members are illiterate and do not understand our legal system. They are coerced into pleading guilty to avoid harsher punishment.

Our failure lies in not providing a robust system of public defenders to protect an accused who cannot afford a criminal defence lawyer. At present, many people fall victim to crown prosecutors motivated by adding another conviction to their record. Justice requires a balance with public defenders holding prosecutors to account. That is not happening.

Colour and racial background cannot play any part in our justice system. Our judicial system has to prove that an accused is guilty. That requires that an accused has a quality legal defence. When an accused is appropriately represented, and a prosecutor is challenged to prove guilt rather than accept a plea we are assured that justice has been done.

The Liberal approach sets a different legal bar for members of minorities, which is unacceptable. Our justice system is not a social service department.

The notion that persons convicted of a crime are sent to prison to be rehabilitated is nonsense. Our prisons are not re-education camps. People serving a prison sentence can be offered the opportunity to change their attitudes and behaviours, but they cannot be coerced or forced.

Prisons are poorly suited to offering rehabilitation programs to inmates. Their priority is maintaining public safety by keeping inmates incarcerated for their sentence duration.

The time for delivering programs is when they are approaching eligibility for parole. They can be transferred to a minimum security setting to take programs in preparation for parole release. There they are freed from pressure from other inmates and program facilitators are free from intimidation.  

Those who do not participate in programs will return to prison to complete their sentence, but they will make that choice without coercion from fellow inmates or prison officials.

 

John Feldsted … is a political commentator, consultant, and strategist. He makes his home in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

 

 

Image Credit: Ichigo121212

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

'Very good news' that Supreme Court will hear B.C. mineral claims case, Eby says

The BC government needs clarity from the Supreme Court of Canada on a landmark mineral rights claim, Premier David Eby says. But the lawyer representing the challenger says that they would have preferred the province respect the lower court's decision. Eby said Thursday it is very good news that the court will hear its appeal of a ruling that found the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the provincial mineral claims regime are "inconsistent." The BC Court of Appeal ruled in December that the provincial Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or DRIPA, should be "properly interpreted" to incorporate the UN declaration into the laws of B.C. with immediate legal effect. That ruling set off the appeal from the province amid concerns that it could cause economic uncertainty ... CLICK HERE for the full story 

EBY OFFSIDE WITH NATIONAL INTEREST AS CARNEY AND SMITH BUILD BC'S ECONOMIC FUTURE WITHOUT HIM ~~ BC Conservatives

IMAGE CREDIT :  CBC News   Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced a landmark agreement today committing Ottawa to designate a new pipeline to BC's west coast as a project of national interest by October 1, 2026, with construction approval targeted for September 1, 2027. The deal pairs the pipeline with a new industrial carbon pricing framework and a fall 2027 construction start. British Columbia, the province where the pipeline ends, where the jobs would land, and where the export terminal would be built, was nowhere at the table. "This is a nation-building deal, and the BC NDP have been locked out of the room," said Trevor Halford, Interim Leader of the Official Opposition.  "While the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta were doing the hard work of growing the Canadian economy, the NDP is on the sidelines calling this pipeline a 'fiction' and an 'energy vampire.'  He chose petulance over partnership, and now BC ...

Kamloops - North Thompson BC Conservative MLA Ward Stamer speaks to Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act

The following is a condensed version of Kamloops – North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer’s remarks, to the BC Legislature, on the afternoon of Tuesday May 19th : I rise today to continue remarks on Bill 20, the K’ómoks treaty, and to address what I believe are some of the most important constitutional, democratic and governance concerns facing this Legislature today. At the centre of this debate are two major issues. First, unresolved overlapping territorial boundaries tied to this treaty process. And second, the growing legal and political consequences arising from the provincial government’s implementation of the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, more commonly known as DRIPA. Much of the government’s defence on DRIPA rests upon references to the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, commonly known as UNDRIP. And this is where we must begin having a more honest and mature conversation in this province. UNDRIP was never originally designed to function ...

Labels

Show more