Harper pledges minimum drug sentences

[ollie]

Harper pledges minimum drug sentences

A Conservative government would legislate mandatory minimum prison sentences of at least two years for people convicted of serious drug offences, party leader Stephen Harper says.

The terms would apply to people convicted of trafficking, manufacturing or importing hard drugs, such as heroin, cocaine and crystal methamphetamine, Harper said Saturday during an election stop in Burnaby, B.C.

...

As Harper tackled the issues of crime and drugs, he said his party would introduce mandatory prison time for anyone convicted of running marijuana grow operations.

...

Harper reiterated his promise not to re-introduce the Liberal plan to soften marijuana possession laws.

He said while the Conservatives are in favour of prevention and treatment programs for drug addicts, these are "no substitutes for tough law enforcement."

[Lazlo]

How does Harper intend to pay for these mandatory prison sentences if he cuts the GST? Hmmm...

[d_rawk]

And how does he intend to pay for the increased healthcosts associated with spread of Hep C and AIDS after closing the safe-injection sites as he has also promised to do as part of this drug policy?

And of course, mandatory sentencing has worked oh-ever-so well south of the border. *rolling eyes*

But at least it will be booming good times for the Canadian private prison system. [color:purple]Woohoo, job growth!

Prisons are also a leading rural growth industry. With traditional agriculture being pushed aside by agribusiness, many rural American communities are facing hard times. Economically depressed areas are falling over each other to secure a prison facility of their own. Prisons are seen as a source of jobs - in construction, local vendors and prison staff - as well as a source of tax revenues. An average prison has a staff of several hundred employees and an annual payroll of several million dollars.

Like any industry, the prison economy needs raw materials. In this case the raw materials are prisoners. The prison industrial complex can grow only if more and more people are incarcerated - even if crime rates drop. "Three Strikes" and mandatory minimums (harsh, fixed sentences without parole) are two examples of the legal superstructure quickly being put in place to guarantee that the prison population will grow and grow and grow.

[grateful_dave]

i hear harper has a tiny caucus!

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

The concept of private prisons is scary as hell. I can't believe people tolerate even the phrase, at the same time as a certain kind of criminality is being redefined.

[Tooly]

what a friggin goof. he must want to be GWB Jr. or something, fucking fixed sentences, yeah i can see it for hard drugs, even huge grow ops, lets say over 200 plants, 2 yrs, whatever, it wont stop the folks from doing it. but they should soften the simple possession laws.

i also heard that if he gets in he will have yet another vote for gay marriages, so i think he will get a lot of votes between the tax cut, which is shit, the gay marriage thing, and this.

fucking stupid harper

[Im going home Donny]

Harper can suck my cock. I'm so annoyed that once again because of these fuckers I'll have to vote for the stinking pretenders. Colour me red.

[Im going home Donny]

So its okay to possess...but the person who took the risk for you ought to be jailed?

[timouse]

So its okay to possess...but the person who took the risk for you ought to be jailed?

it's ok to possess, but nobody can produce under fear of stiffer penalties. it's like making alcohol legal but introducing the death penalty for distilleries

this just in...steven harper has a tiny caucus and an equally tiny brain.

Separated At Birth?

[d_rawk]

Oh, they'll still produce, they'll just have to get increasingly paranoid, organized, and violent to do so

[Im going home Donny]

Oh, they'll still produce, they'll just have to get increasingly paranoid, organized, and violent to do so

yup.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

For all the chaos that went down with that fucker who shot up the RCMP when they came to bust him for something totally unrelated, it seems that it's to be expected that everyone has forgotten and that it's time to get back to the regular two-minute hate. Pathetic.

[Birdy]

The concept of private prisons is scary as hell. I can't believe people tolerate even the phrase, at the same time as a certain kind of criminality is being redefined.

no doubt. profiting off of crime introduces an entirely different evil into the world. i could talk for days on this one.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I wish we had these guys running in our riding.

Marijuana Party of Canada

They have a link to a good letter written in to the Post which hopefully got read by Post readers/Tory supporters (not to overgeneralise, but there you go).

Harper's Reefer Madness.

[d_rawk]

Drug dealers across the country are probably popping bottles of Champagne. Harper must love organized crime and gun violence as much as he hates the idea of generating $3-billion in annual tax revenue. Harper's archaic ideas about "getting tough" on drug dealers are absurd. Mandatory minimum sentences have failed to end drug use in the United States, and they will fail here.

The more we "crack down," the higher the profits for those we don't catch, which will only drive up the competition and the gun violence. The streets of Canada in 2006 will look like the streets of Chicago in the 1930s: police out-numbered and out-armed, and the streets awash with the blood of young people.

Yes! Fuck ya!

Thanks for the post, DEM.

The Con policy on this is shortsighted at best. It is dangerous and unnecesary. Why not let the judiciary do its job? Why dilute the independence of the courts and restrict their ability to make decisions based on the subtlety and nuance of the case under consideration?

Bah. Bah, I say!

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Thanks, Megs. I'm glad this article nailed the racist angle so well (I'm reminded of the same arguments made in the US about lazy/rapacious marihuana-smoking Blacks and Mexicans). Similar points have been made around Prohibition, too - those Catholics sure love the drink.

And at the same time, you have significant numbers of people on SSRIs (including increasing numbers of kids), and negative findings in the research are being suppressed (not to speak of what goes on in the rest of the pharmaceutical industry - where you get people like George H. W. Bush sitting on their boards of directors).

[TomFoolery]

Anyone interested in a phenomenal read of the American drug policy should read "Drug Crazy" (author forgotten). It outlines the major players, the abuse of and fabrication of statistics used in the senate hearings and the evolution of American drug law.

Interestingly, at the time opiates were first outlawed in the US there were more white middle class house-wives addicted than blacks/hispanics/asians combined due largely to the use of laudenum.

[bradm]

Drug Crazy by Mike Gray.

Aloha,

Brad

[TomFoolery]

That's the one...

[ollie]

'Our values are under attack," Stephen Harper declared Saturday in Vancouver.

I don't really have a point other than: Fuck you Stephen Harper. Fuck you.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Well put. It's like he's saying There's not enough room in this democracy for both of us.

[timouse]

i've said it before, i'll say it again.

[bradm]

Could there be a constitutional challenge to mandatory minimum sentences? (ISTR such challenges happening in the USA, but don't remember the details.)

Aloha,

Brad

[d_rawk]

I don't know much about law, but just found this on Google, from 1987:

Canada, R. v. SMITH

Appellant pleaded guilty to importing seven and a half ounces of cocaine into Canada contrary to s. 5(1) of the Narcotic Control Act. Before submissions on sentencing were made the accused challenged the constitutional validity of the seven-year minimum sentence imposed by s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act as being inconsistent with ss. 7, 9 and 12 of the Charter. The trial judge found the minimum mandatory imprisonment of seven years in s. 5(2) to be cruel and unusual punishment contrary to the Charter because of the potential disproportionality of the mandatory sentence. He nevertheless imposed an eight-year sentence. The Court of Appeal ruled that s. 5(2) was not inconsistent with the Charter and found the sentence imposed to be appropriate. The constitutional question before the Court was whether or not s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act was contrary to the Charter, and in particular, to ss. 7, 9 and 12.

A punishment will be cruel and unusual and violate s. 12 of the Charter if it has any one or more of the following characteristics:

(1) The punishment is of such character or duration as to outrage the public conscience or be degrading to human dignity;

(2) The punishment goes beyond what is necessary for the achievement of a valid social aim, having regard to the legitimate purposes of punishment and the adequacy of possible alternatives; or

(3) The punishment is arbitrarily imposed in the sense that it is not applied on a rational basis in accordance with ascertained or ascertainable standards.

Appellant would not be able to show that the minimum punishment in s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act would outrage the public conscience or be degrading to human dignity, especially when it is considered in the light of the other sentences currently provided for in Canadian law, the length of the sentence actually to be served, and the seriousness of the offence. This sentence did not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the valid social aim of deterring the traffic in drugs; Parliament considered the matter carefully and extensively and there was a want of evidence before the Court as to adequate alternatives capable of realizing this valid social aim. Finally, this punishment was imposed in accordance with standards or principles rationally connected to the purposes of the legislation.

Parliament, in legislating a minimum sentence, merely concluded that the gravity of the offence alone warranted that sentence. The legislation does not restrain the discretion of the trial judge to weigh and consider the circumstances of the offence in determining the length of sentence and it cannot be considered arbitrary and therefore cruel and unusual.

As far as arbitrariness may arise in the actual sentencing process, judicial error will not affect constitutionality and would, ordinarily, be correctable on appeal.

Appellant could not succeed under s. 7 of the Charter. Section 7 sets out broad and general rights which often extend over the same ground as other rights set out in the Charter. These rights cannot be read so broadly as to render other rights nugatory, and for this reason, s. 7 cannot raise any rights or issues not already considered under s. 12.

Seems it failed there. *shrug*

In the recent flap involving Irwin Cotler and mandatory sentences for gun crimes, I seem to remember lawyers saying that they would be prepared to challenge them on constitutional grounds on behalf of their clients ...