Prime Minister Stephen Harper took a page out of tough U.S. justice legislation yesterday by announcing that his government will introduce a three-strikes law to force repeat violent and sexual offenders to justify why they should not be locked away indefinitely.
The announcement, which the party has been promising since the last election campaign, was resoundingly panned by justice experts who say similar measures south of the border have proved ineffective in reducing crime. And it's unclear whether there will be enough support from opposition members to get the proposed legislation passed into law.
But Mr. Harper said his government is answering a call from Canadians who believe the country is not as safe as it once was.
"Canadians from across this country have told us they want action on crime and we are delivering," he said at a Toronto police union office, backed by a supportive group of law-enforcement officials and crime victims.
The government will introduce a bill in Parliament next week to change the onus on people convicted of a third violent or sexual offence to prove why they should not be locked away indefinitely with no chance of parole for seven years. Currently, it is up to the Crown to demonstrate why a serious repeat offender should be declared a danger to society.
Voters in Washington State approved the first three-strikes law in 1993, while California followed a year later. By 2004, 26 states and the U.S. federal government had laws that satisfy the general criteria for three-strikes statutes.
Mr. Harper said the result here will be a "tougher, clearer" justice system.
"We admit that it will cost more money in the short term," he said, "but in the longer term we expect to provide real strong disincentives for criminal behaviour."
The Conservatives also intend to double the maximum period for peace bonds to two years. And they want to put tighter restrictions on high-risk offenders once they are released by investing in a national flagging system that tracks potentially dangerous individuals.
The government will need the support of either the Liberals or the Bloc Québécois to see their proposed legislation become law. The Bloc has expressed reservations about laws of this type. And the Liberals were less than enthusiastic yesterday.
Brian Murphy, associate justice critic for the Liberals, said his party would likely support extending the periods of peace bonds.
But in terms of the dangerous-offender legislation, "the big picture is will this really make Canada safer?" he asked. And "are the prisons big enough and well-stocked and well-resourced enough right now to hold the increased flow that might come?"
However, Priscilla de Villiers, whose 19-year-old daughter Nina was murdered in 1991 while jogging in Burlington, Ont., by a repeat rapist, said "this can only assist in protecting mainly women and children."
She added, "The onus of a dangerous offender is profound - it's extremely difficult."
Three-strikes laws in effect in a number of U.S. states require lengthy and mandatory sentences for someone who is convicted for what is deemed to be a third serious criminal offence. In California, for instance, the law demands mandatory life imprisonment.
The California law caused an increase in the state prison population of 17.7 per cent between 1993 and 2002 while the crime rate dropped more slowly than that of other states, such as New York, where there was no three-strikes law.
Government officials have taken great pains to say the Canadian law would not be the same as those introduced south of the border. The Canadian version, for instance, would give the convicted person a chance to demonstrate why that kind of punishment is not deserved.
//new//Under the three-strikes law envisioned by Ottawa, the offender would have to be convicted twice of a violent or sexual crime included in a list of 11 specified offences and then sentenced to a term in prison for more than two years, an official in the Justice Department said. Then, on the third offence, the offender would have to be convicted of a similar crime for which the judge would reasonably expect that another term of two years or more in prison is warranted. //end new//
But there is a clear similarity between the American laws and the one being proposed here in Canada. And experts say the U.S. legislation has done nothing to increase public safety.
"None of these three-strikes laws have worked," said Jason Ziedenberg, executive director of the U.S. Justice Policy Institute, which has studied the effects of the laws. "There has been no benefit shown in lower crime rates."
Elizabeth White, executive director of the St. Leonard's Society of Canada, said reversing the onus of proof goes against the basic premise of innocence until proved guilty.
"It's almost an impossible battle. If you intend to deprive somebody of their liberty indefinitely, surely you should have to show why that should be," Ms. White said. "Just by alleging [somebody is a dangerous offender]does not make it so."
Toronto Mayor David Miller said he was "very disappointed" by the Prime Minister's announcement. The mayor said Mr. Harper "should have announced a reverse onus on all gun crimes," adding that the federal government should also ban handguns and semi-automatic weapons.
Irvin Waller, director of the University of Ottawa's Institute for the Prevention of Crime, was involved in drafting the original dangerous-offender legislation. He said it has been clear for some time that something needs to be done about the release of dangerous prisoners.
But "I think we as a nation have to be very careful to avoid legislation like the three-strikes-and-you're-out legislation in the U.S." Prof. Waller said. "They incarcerate very large numbers of people who are not that dangerous."
With reports from Unnati Gandhi and Jennifer Lewington in Toronto, Shannon Kari in Vancouver and Canadian Press