OPINION
Canada: Liberals' youth crime bill
mostly empty
There's much less than meets the eye to the Liberals'
youth crime bill. That doesn't mean the new law isn't useful. While
politicians love bold initiatives — because we do — small, smart changes
often make more sense.
The spin — dutifully reported — was that the new law
would see more youths go to jail for doing bad things like trespassing
on school grounds to recruit gang members or coerce kids into the sex
trade. The maximum penalty for those offences has been a fine or
probation. Now the courts will be able to jail offenders for 30 days.
The government's news release, Solicitor General Rich Coleman and even
Premier Gordon Campbell talked about getting tough with young offenders.
Earnest reporters trotted off to make sure there would
be enough jail space. But the reality is that almost nothing has
changed. Only a few more kids will likely go to jail — which is a good
thing.
There's nothing wrong with the changes. They send a
signal that certain offences are viewed seriously. There's a remote
chance that they'll make some kids think twice, although that's not
likely. The average 15-year-old offender is not great at considering
consequences. If he was, he wouldn't be doing dangerous things.
And the changes give principals another weapon. If a
problem youth won't stay away from the school — whether he's trespassing
to get in a fight, sell drugs or just hang out — then school act charges
could, in an extraordinary case, result in a few days in custody. But
it's going to be a mighty rare occurrence. All across B.C. only 51
trespassing charges were laid last year under the school act. (There are
more than 1,800 schools.)
A few more charges may be laid. And a few youths may
spend a couple of days in jail, when they're a real nuisance around a
school and police can't figure out a way to make more serious charges
stick. But charges will be scarce, and probation the norm.
That's good. Some youths need to be locked up because
they're a danger to others. Some kids benefit from a few days in custody
so people have a chance to try and help them. But mostly kids who are
locked up learn to be better criminals. That's why the number of youth
in custody has fallen by 40 per cent in the last three years.
So if the bill's measures really represent only an
almost insignificant, though useful change, why all the tough talk from
the Liberals?
They've decided it's a good idea to be seen as tough
on crime. That's why Solicitor General Rich Coleman, who does a good
tough bit, did the talking about what was really Attorney General Geoff
Plant's bill.
That's why the news release talked about tougher
penalties for kids who trespass on school property for gang activities
or sexual exploitation, when really the penalties apply to all school
trespass. Usually, it's drug dealing or picking fights that results in
charges, not pimping.
It's a risky tactic. Practically, the public loses if
our approach to crime is simplistic. It will take much more than tougher
penalties to make communities safer. Most criminals don't think about
the penalties first.
And politically, the Liberals are on thin ice. People
are already worried about the effects of the government's policies on
crime rates. And next year Coleman's ministry plans to cut $19 million —
about eight per cent — from spending on policing and community safety.
Probation officers will have larger caseloads, and supervision of people
on house arrest will continue to be lax.
It was a good bill. The changes, although small, are
useful. But the Liberal spin was worrying. We don't need slogans about
crime — from either the 'lock-em-up' camp or the
'it's-all-someone-else's-problem' camp.
It's going to take smart, complex — and in the
short-term costly — programs to deal with our crime problem.
12 November 2003
home
|