Waiting for the tidal wave

Exploiting the daily and increasingly ugly news about crime that's happening in our streets, homes and businesses, politicians from all parties are seizing on the populist opportunity. Virtually all MPs are supporting the Conservatives' get-tough criminal law reform initiatives in Parliament. Our Manitoba minister of justice has become one of the federal government's strongest and most vocal allies in the cause. Opposition parties at all levels seek out their own opportunities on the issue.

This is a good thing, in the sense that any vestige of ideology has been trumped by a common need to do something about a common problem. Without necessarily abandoning the traditional centre and left political concerns about underlying "root social causes" of crime, everyone, it seems, has bought into the idea of "safety first." In other words, we need to focus on making things safe before we can take the time and resources to get at the things that make people commit crime.

This unity of purpose, however, seems to only be manifesting itself in the form of tougher criminal laws.

That's a start, but it runs the risk of ignoring the rest of an entire criminal justice system that is impacted by these types of changes. One thing leads to another in that complex web, and there ought to be more concern about the ripple effect that is occurring.

Overloading the justice system has been going on for a long time and we can see it clearly in the arguments being made in a grievance filed by the Crown attorneys' association. They are unhappy and experiencing not merely a ripple, but something much larger.

If we want to have tougher laws, we need more resources for enforcement. In other words, we need more police and support personnel to process investigations and arrests. This leads to needing more for prosecution services, including support staff because, as it currently stands, this essential step in the process is hugely understaffed. And if we are going to prosecute more, we need more for legal aid in order to ensure that lower-income accused people have lawyers. We can't have a criminal justice system in which the rich look after themselves while the poor get flushed through and sent off to jail because they don't have access to proper representation.

With more prosecutions, we need more courtrooms in which to process the cases. More courtrooms mean more judges who can fairly manage the presumption of innocence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, judgment, and if guilty, then sentencing. More convictions that lead to more sentences means we need more probation service professionals and if incarceration occurs, more jails. More jail facilities means we need more corrections and rehabilitation services personnel. More victims means that we need more victim services personnel.

It's not a ripple, it's a tidal wave.

Viewed from this perspective, it should be clear that getting tough on crime is more complex than political sloganeering to placate an enraged public. Yet Justice department spending at both provincial and federal levels has remained relatively static for years. The proof, in terms of actual public policy relating to getting tough on crime, seems to be inconsistent with the politics of the issue.

And it's the public policy part of the equation that really tests whether the public is serious, because it requires the government to spend more money. Raising new revenue is likely not in the cards because implementing new taxes in the current political environment is political suicide. So it becomes a question of what are we prepared to do without in order to apply proper funding to getting tough on crime?

Within the entire range of federal and provincial activity, are there areas of spending that could be eliminated or reduced in order to reallocate proper funding toward the ripple effect that comes with getting tough on crime? The answer must certainly be yes.

Because if the answer is no, it means that all the talk is just talk. The bold declarations at news conferences and proposed changes to legislation mean nothing unless they mean everything.

It's time for the politics to marry itself to better and more complete public policy on this issue. Could it ever be said of an issue of public importance that the time is so ripe? Is there any doubt that a comprehensive approach to getting tough on crime is what the public wants? Isn't that what we should legitimately expect from government? Note to government: Do it; do it now and do it right.

David Asper is an assistant professor of law at the University of Manitoba.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition October 13, 2009 A13