OTTAWA–Federal government proposals to get tougher on criminals would hit aboriginal people the hardest, violate Charter rights of inmates, and likely not make for safer streets, says the agency that oversees federal prisons.
The analysis says minimum sentences don't have a deterrent effect and drain away funds available for social programs that prevent crime.There is a problem with using social programs to fight crime. The problem is that most crime is not caused by poverty or inequality; rather it is motivated by a lust for power and wealth. Since social problems do not cause most crime, corresponding social programs will not ameliorate crime. When houses get broken into, it is almost never the food which gets stolen. If criminals were the downtrodden and the starving, then they would steal bread loaves or blankets. Instead the typical criminal steals stereo equipment and DVDs. The criminal is greedy, not oppressed. And since the act flows from a failing of character, it is not only counterproductive to respond with social interventions; it is in fact unethical. When the motive is greed, when the object stolen is a luxury, the only proper response is to respond with punishment.
The proposal for a three-strikes law – designating as a dangerous offender anyone convicted of a third violent or sexual offence – would have a "disproportionately higher impact" on native people, the analysis says.
The lack of concern for the victims of crime is evident in this report's omissions. If it is true that natives commit a disproportionate number of crimes, the likely corollary is that natives are also a disproportionate number of crime victims. Those most impacted by a criminal are typically the offender's children, spouse and neighbors. Thus, far from having a negative impact on minority communities as whole, three strikes legislation is likely to protect the most vulnerable members of such communities.
No comments:
Post a Comment