The Canadian Justice System needs a complete overhaul. It is a mess, not only with how lax criminal convictions are treated but also how we manage the business of keeping criminals under lock and key. The motivation of this article is because of the recent news that Craig Munro, a convicted cop-killer, has been granted unescorted passes out of prison. To be very blunt, this makes me sick to my stomach.
Munro was convicted of murdering Constable Michael Sweet during a botched robbery thirty years ago. In that time, he has not had any remorse for his crime, and he has continued to manipulate the facts of the case. He constantly implies that he was not responsible for the murder of Constable Sweet. Yet the facts paint a very different story.
Constable Sweet was on patrol when he came across a robbery in progress at George’s Bourbon Street Tavern in the early morning hours of March 14th, 1980. He was shot twice, once in the chest and once in the shoulder. He fell to the floor of the tavern bleeding to death while the Munro brothers negotiated with police officers. To add insult to injury, Craig Munro repeatedly taunted the dying Constable Sweet, telling him how he was going to die and that he would never see his wife and kids again. One of his exact quotes was, “I’ve been in ’Nam, pig. Put your hand over the holes and you won’t bleed to death. Take it better, will you. You’re getting on my nerves.”
Ninety minutes later, thanks to the heroics of Officers Eddy Adamson, Gary Leuin, and Barry Doyle, Constable Sweet was loaded into an ambulance and taken to Toronto General Hospital, where he had emergency surgery. Unfortunately, the doctors could not save his life and he succumbed to his injuries.
Jamie Munro was tried and convicted for second-degree murder and sentenced to twelve years in prison. He was released in 1992 and now lives in Italy under the name of Massimo Marra. Craig Munro was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. Less than four years prior, Canada had abolished the death penalty.
I am unabashed in saying that I support the death penalty in cases such as Craig Munro’s. In capital murder cases, where there is no question that the perpetrator is guilty, they should be executed. Other criminals that fit this profile are Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olsen. In some cases, I tend to become extremely right-wing when I start theorizing on how I would overhaul the Justice System and rewrite the Criminal Code, but please bear with me. Perhaps it is the philosophy behind incarceration itself. People who lean towards the left view incarceration as a tool to rehabilitate, whereas those who are politically right tend to view being behind bars as punishment.
I see building the system as an effective tool to do both. Let us face facts here. You are never, ever, going to be able to release men like Clifford Olsen, Craig Munro, and Paul Bernardo into society again. There is no way to rehabilitate them, and their crimes are so severe that they deserve nothing less than the harshest punishment that we can provide. As a society, it is our responsibility to make sure that these men suffer for their crimes as much as the victims left behind in their wake. To me, it’s an eye-for-an-eye mentality when dealing with the worst of the worst.
As mentioned, I really do not have a big issue with respect to re-instating capital punishment. Why should we, as taxpayers, pay good money year in and year out to keep these monsters behind bars? Do you know that it costs the government nearly $70,000 per year to house a prisoner? That number factors in everything from wages for guards to the cost of heat and hydro. I’m going to wager that it would not cost near as much to hang them. The caveat, of course, would be the fact that indisputeable proof would have to be provided prior to that sentence being handed down. Of course, the law would have to be re-written to accomodate the strictest definition of indisputeable.
Taking a look at the system itself, the punishment must always fit the crime and in many cases in Canada it does not. Death penalty aside (because really, you can’t go around killing marijuana users), the deterrents to commit crime are so lax that many police officers probably do not want to charge anyone, because there are no reprecussions! If I was a cop, this would bother me terribly. Ergo, if I was a politician, my mission would be to get tough on crime.
You hear that old adage over and over again with every new government, be it provincial or federal. Yet – if I had my way – it would come true. Now, I’m not talking about sending someone to prison for life because they were jaywalking. No, no, no…let’s be sensible before everyone brands me a conservative wingnut. That comes later.
Start with the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This act addresses many of the glaring concerns in the Young Offenders Act, which it replaced. However, it does not go far enough. I do not necessarily agree with the fact that maximum sentences are still enforced, nor are they strong enough deterrents. In so saying that, given that the crime or crimes were committed by those under the age of eighteen, more provisions to rehabilitate have to be included. I think that we have a much better chance of turning around a younger life than that of a career criminal.
When people are younger, they do stupid things. I myself am guilty of that. Thankfully, things worked out well for me because my sentence (and the consequences thereof) were both a deterrant and a punishment. Serious offenses, such as those of capital murder, are the exceptions to the rule. If you commit such a crime, then you deserve to be locked up forever (or executed). Lesser crimes, such as mischief, theft, and even drug abuse are correctable crimes. I sometimes think of the kid in California who was sentenced to life in prison under California’s Three Strikes Law because he stole a slice of pizza. That is a good example of the law being too harsh. He was not stealing to buy drugs or get rich, he was stealing because he was hungry. These are the people that we need to help.
They need to pay for their crime, of course. But they can pay for their crime by volunteering in the community, getting an education, and doing positive things as opposed to hard time. As an aside, the government should be stepping up to help those in need so that they do not feel that they need to resort to crime to make ends meet. However, that would be a workfare/education concept that I have also touched on in the past and will likely discuss in greater detail in a future article.
Where I have little sympathy are for those who commit serious offenses such as weapons violations, rape, and murder. There should be serious minimum sentences for these crimes with no maximum sentence. The sentences should not run concurrently, but rather consecutively. So, for example…if you commit a robbery, you get two years. If you commit a robbery with a gun, you get two years for robbery and you get seven years for illegal possession of a handgun. That’s nine years total.
Neither am I a fan of getting time chopped off of a sentence for good behaviour. In fact, if you are not on your best behaviour in prison then we just add more time! However, I do believe in giving time off if the individual in prison is volunteering, learning a new skill, or undergoing education. If that person can prove to the powers that be (ie, the parole board) that they are well on their way to being rehabilitated, then perhaps that individual deserves a second chance. Again, with respect to capital murder cases or multiple repeat offenders, second chances do not apply.
I am not sure what the current penalties are with respect to certain crimes, but I am going to state here what I think the minimum punishments should be. When looking at what I have written, please keep in mind that these are not even near as severe as some other countries, whose punishments are far harsher and whose prison systems are a lot worse. There are many criminals who would love to come and serve out their sentence in Canada, as opposed to countries such as Mexico, Bulgaria, China, or Russia. In those countries, prisoners are offered neither rights nor dignity. They are treated worse than animals, starved and put to work in hard labor camps.
Terrorism. The punishment should be death. Those who would plot terrorist acts against our nation, regardless of the role they played, would be executed. Domestic terrorists would be treated in the same manner as foreign nationals.
Sexual Assault. Sexual assault to me is a serious and deviant crime. I do not see any possible way to rehabilitate sexual offenders, especially those that prey on children. These monsters I would lock up behind bars forever. I would never give them a second chance to re-offend. Even when released, they pose a grave danger to society. Ergo, they would never be released. Unfortunately, western society would not allow me to castrate them, or I would make that mandatory as well.
Rapists. Rapism is the ultimate sexual assault. Therefore, rapists would fall under the same category as those who committed sexual assault. They would be put in jail for life. There would be no possibility of parole.
Gun Crime. This one is a tricky one. Gun crime almost always preceeds another crime, or is committed in conjunction with a crime. The sentences would, as previously stated, run consecutively. Simple possession of an illegal weapon would be an automatic five year prison sentence. Possession of a weapon used to commit a crime would be seven years.
Illegal Immigrants. With respect to illegal immigrants, I am not talking about the people who sneak over the border and try to make an honest living for themselves. I am talking about those who are in Canada illegally, but commit crimes. I would have them serve their full sentences in this country, and then they would be immediately deported. If they return into the country and are apprehended, they would be given an automatic life sentence with no possibility of parole.
Drunk Driving. The fines and the losing of your licence penalties are stiff, but there is no punishment or proper programs in place to help these people out. Yes – they are drinking and they made the conscious (albeit inebriated) decision to get behind the wheel and drive. A first time offender would have to complete a treatment program, would not be able to drive for two years, and would have to spend at least six months in jail (likely to be served on weekends so as not to cause financial hardship). Second time offenders would receive two years in jail, and a five year ban. The third time, five years with a lifetime driving ban. The fourth time they would get ten years, and the fifth time twenty years. Any further incidents and the individual would then receive life in prison.
Should someone commit vehicular manslaughter while under the influence, that changes things entirely. Unfortunately, intended or not, that is something that should carry a very stiff sentence. In my opinion, at least ten years, with no possibility of parole. It goes without saying that their licence would be revoked forever.
Drug Abuse. Drugs are an interesting subject because they take so many different forms. For example, I would have no problem legalizing small quantities of marijuana for personal use. To me, the drug is less harmless than cigarettes and since its use is so widespread, we may as well cultivate it ourselves, tax it, and sell it. We have done the same thing with cigarettes and cigars, and god only knows what chemicals are in them. On the flipside, we could ban both cigarettes and marijuana in their entirety, but I think the government would face a public revolt if it did.
Hardcore drugs would be handled differently. I would impose a mandatory five year sentence on hardcore drug abusers, with credit towards their sentence given if the proper substance abuse programs are completed. However, this would be a not necessarily be one time chance to get clean. Second offenders would receive a harsher sentence, but the same programs would still apply.
Traffickers are another story altogether. A mandatory ten year sentence would be imposed with no possibilty of parole. For those selling to minors, the sentence would double to twenty years.
One thing that I admire about the United States’ justice system is their accessory law. If you are an accessory to a crime, you are held accountable to the standard that you actually committed the crime. I fully support this and I would have no issues implementing it in Canada.
Under my system, I’m sure the prisons would fill up very fast and we would likely have to build more, as well as hire and train many new personnel. The capitalist in me is always looking for ways to make money. Call this section The Business of Prisons. As it happens, I have some ideas on how we could adapt the prison system to cover the costs of its responsibilities. The first idea, obviously, is to trim the fat. Government entities are always overloaded with excess, and to that end all around it has to become more efficient at what it does. I do not mean cutting manpower necessarily, but rather the tendering of services and supplies as opposed to going with “preferred” suppliers. Make it illegal to tender a service contract for a duration longer than three years, which would ensure that the company providing the services offered up the best value to the government.
The Canadian government could profit by offering to host (the worst of the worst) convicts from other nations. People who are never going to be released from prison. It would be akin to providing a service. Obviously, we are not going to do it for free, but if we estimate that it costs $120,000 per year per prisoner, why not charge $135,000 a year? Or more, if you can get it. Some (mostly third-world) countries would not pay this fee, but other developed nations may consider this a deal. Even if the charge is more than they can do it themselves for, there is the factor of being able to wipe your hands of any mess in the event that something untoward happens (for example, the prisoner tries to escape, kill another prisoner, etc…). As the facilitators of the prison, our government would be ultimately responsible.
Not that I would expect any of this to happen. To steal a page from the United States, you have to have SuperMax prisons. This is where the business gets a little complicated, because we branch out into different areas here. Do we build the prison with taxpayer money and then run it ourselves, knowing that we will eventually reap a profit? Or, do we outsource the construction and day-to-day operations of the prison to a private contractor?
Personally, I would rather spend the money up front and reap the profit at the end. The government has lots of time and there is plenty of crime. There is also plenty of crown land, as we are the largest (land-wise) country on the planet. I think that building these SuperMax prisons in urban areas is foolish. I would begin construction of these prisons in the northern settlements. Specifically, Banks Island, Baffin Island, Ellesmere Island, and Victoria Island. Given the northern population is primarily Inuit, prison construction and staffing would provide an excellent employment resource for those communities that deperately need it.
I once had a radical idea (even for me) to make money, or more aptly, pay money to the victims of crime. It was based on the Stephen King novel The Running Man, where convicts would fight to the death and people would wage on who would survive the longest. Now, I wouldn’t suggest going that far, but I would not have a problem televising the executions of condemned prisoners on pay per view. Of course, this idea really appeals to those people who do not see the moral denigration of society, or who wish to do anything to curb it. And in that aspect, it would never, ever become a reality if I ever had that kind of power. I am merely wondering out loud what the revenue potential would be.
I’m sure I’ve missed more than my share of things, and opened up a huge can of worms with respect to the “what if” debaters out there. The simple fact is that writing a universal law is best left to lawyers (who in their own right, should be shot for being lawyers). The trick is to make the Criminal Code clear, simple, and understandable by all. These are the laws, and if you break them, this is the minimum sentence you have to look forward to. Any extrenous circumstances can be interpreted by the judges, who would have the ability to increase a sentence should they feel the need.
Additionally, and I guess as a final note, all appeals would be run concurrently in cases where the sentence was death. There would be no ability to tie the case up in the courts for years on end. The prisoner would be able to choose the method of execution, however. Lethal injection, hanging, or firing squad. Of course, they would be allowed a last meal as well. I am harsh, but I am fair.
