Katy Austin : New Democrats

Parliament may soon be voting on what has been termed an anti-crime bill. I strongly urge our MP, Helena Geurgis to oppose it.

The bill was drafted in reaction to a few highly publicized crimes involving the use of guns and would require a judge to impose a minimum sentence on the guilty party. However, if passed, its impact would be felt in a wide variety of situations for which the bill was never really intended.

Take, for instance the case of Robert Latimer. The judge and the jury granted him an exemption from the mandatory minimum sentence because of the nature of his case, but they were overruled by appeal court judges who felt they had no legal choice but to impose the minimum penalty. Take, for another instance, the 1994 case of a policeman who unlawfully discharged his firearm while chasing a burglar; under the new law, a judge would have no choice but to jail him for five years.

Judges have expressed concern that mandatory sentences restrict their ability to make a just decision. Studies have also shown that crime rates are not lowered by mandatory minimums. In cases where sentences are deemed to be unduly lenient, the prosecution always has the option of appeal to a higher court; with a mandatory minimum law, there would be no such avenue of appeal when the sentences is deemed too harsh.

At this time in our history we are criticizing the leader of Pakistan for interfering with the legal system in his country. Let us not make the same mistake in our own.

Katy Austin,

President, Simcoe Grey NDP

Categories: Katy's Letters to the Editor
Tags: