Getting tough on Crime (Canadian Society) - Essay Example

? Getting Tough on Crime (Canadian Society) Getting Tough on Crime (Canadian Society) The tough approach on crime has been used tocombat crime in very many societies in present time. It is considered the only way to go about dealing with it. However, many questions are asked as to whether this is the correct way to handle it. Many people believe that fighting fire with fire is the only suitable way for crime to be reduced. Others strongly disagree with this assumption. Around the world, today, many cases have been on the rise as to the extent police have used excess force to deal with criminals. As much as the criminals seem to have it coming, many people still insist that they need to be tried and judged fairly in a court of law. This means that even in the judicial system, they have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be locked up. What certain policies being implemented aim at achieving is ridding the streets of criminals and crimes completely. There have been some that advocate the locking up of criminals for a minimum of ten years for certain crimes. These policies are the cause of concern among many. These cases have seen the call for the re-evaluation of the policies due to the deteriorating state crime fighting is facing. This paper will review the approaches that have been used to handle crime and if indeed they are working. In society, today, there are many assumptions about crime. They often come about due to the various factors present. These factors could include; the media, which include both print and electronic, stereotypes, cultural and ethnic differences among other things that are present in any society. These factors together bring about a common fear for certain things or people and, therefore, the dominant assumptions about crime. An assumption made about crime in many societies is that all those involved in crime were brought up in broken homes. As much as this may be true to some extent, it may not be entirely true (Department of Justice, 2011). Many crimes that happen or take place could be brought on by a lot of factors. One does not have to be from a broken family or home to commit an offence. It all depends on the circumstance that one can find themselves in. If they resort to crime, it is may be due to the pressure that they may be facing at the time. Media coverage has been to blame for the recent rise in crime. However, societies like the Canadian society do not believe that the media has played any role in the rise of crime. They believe that crime is real, and this has nothing to do with the coverage the media has given acts of crime over time (Department of Justice, 2011). Another assumption usually placed on crime would be that crimes committed are of different levels. In Canada, they place crimes against children at the top of the most important crimes. This is closely followed by crimes that are the gang and youth related and finally, violence against women (Department of Justice, 2011). This assumption could mean that if a person is guilty of a crime against the above mentioned they are liable for a greater or harsher punishment. It would greater than when they would have done it against a young man or a mature male. Canada has decided to take the tough approach with crime and criminals. Policies have been made, and bills have been passed to ensure that criminals, once brought to book, bear the full brunt of the law. The judicial system has been mandated to penalise all those of different crimes with longer jail sentences. The reason, it seems, is to bring the law abiding citizen some peace. The assumption that when a criminal gets off easy after being arrested then, the law-abiding citizen is angered by it. They think that the law is coddling the wrongdoers (European Association of Psychology and Law, 2011). Sentences have been extended for those caught by the law. This is even for the smallest crimes imaginable. According to the policy makers, there is no little crime. A crime is a crime, and once the law has been broken, it is in the law’s power to punish the wrongdoer. The judge must ensure that the sentence is equal to the crime committed. This is to enable the person offended, or victim, to feel that justice has been done. Failure to do so by the judge, the government has to step in to give a harsher sentence (European Association of Psychology and Law, 2011). This is so that society does not get angered by the turn of events, and cry foul. Taking the tough approach on crime could not necessarily be helpful in trying to control crime. This is especially in a society like Canada (European Association of Psychology and Law, 2011). Long sentencing periods does not necessarily mean prisoners will come back more changed than those locked up for shorter periods. Getting someone to adapt to an environment they might have left a long time ago could be very hard. This means they are highly susceptible to go back to their old ways if the odds are stacked against them. They could do this just so they could go back to prison where they could at least find a place to sleep and something to eat. Does this mean that the system was right in locking this individual up only for them to get back to committing the same crimes or worse still, far much worse crimes? Where these views come from, is a question only the policy makers can answer. When taking into account the life of someone, it is only right for them to sit down and weigh down on a matter and come up with a possible and amicable solution. If they do not do this, they run the risk of going against the oath they took while taking office to serve and protect the people that voted them in. The public has been given the mandate to pass certain policies that involve other people’s lives (Galloway, 2011). This should not be the case for whatever reason. These approaches are reinforced with the policies that are passed by the government (Galloway, 2011). Failure to comply by these policies would mean that the law is being broken. Policy makers get the task of formulating policies that guarantee total support from the general public or maximum number of voters. That way, they are able to take it back to the public whenever the policy does not work. In the event, they do work; they are applauded and take all the credit for the work done. Maintaining this tough approach depends on how well the public accepts it. Usually the tough approach on crime is taken with consideration to the victim as earlier seen. However, the policy makers are just trying to make their work easier. When asked if the approach is truly applicable, they run to the public supporters who agreed with the policy to begin with. This was meant to be about crime and not about the public getting to see people locked up for petty crimes they might have done. Rehabilitation is supposed to take place while the criminal is incarcerated (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). This does not happen. What happens after their release is the feeling of hopelessness, for they have nothing left. Families having abandoned them, lack of money, no job security, and even at times, the death of loved ones. It usually takes time to implement these policies. However, once they pass through the public and are accepted, they are considered part and parcel of the daily running of that society. The real danger and harm of being institutionalized can be reduced with the returning of certain programs that existed in prisons. Programs like having private family visits for the inmates. Getting inmates to spend time with their loved ones could help them maintain outside relationships. This means that at the end of their sentences, they could have something to look forward to (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). With today’s public, the tough approach has more currency than the soft approach to crime. This is due to the public’s demand to see justice done to all the wrongdoers. After all has been said and done, individuals in society want to see a person pay, for the wrong they might have done. The implementation of the tough approach has, therefore, been with so much vigour (European Association of Psychology and Law, 2011). As times get harder and more difficult for everyone, the tough stance taken on crime is welcomed by the many individuals who feel threatened. This means that they will always support the long term sentencing of individuals who have committed any crime in society. An example of a policy in Canada is the Safe Streets and Communities Act. This act was introduced to ensure that terrorism was an issue of the past and also to ensure that victims of crimes were always protected. Its objective was to improve the safety of families, community and streets in Canada. The introduction of this act has been welcomed by the people present in these areas due to the comfort it has managed to bring. It is not 100% guarantee that it will rid Canada streets of crime, but it has given them something to believe in (Butler, 2008). The re-election of the Harper government does not signal any change in Canadian crime prevention. It will stick to the policies that it had passed on during their previous term in office. What the Canadian government needs is a fresh pair of feet to keep it running. With such a team running the high office for another term, no one can predict what they might come up with this time around. The mandatory minimum penalties policies were introduced by the same people being voted into office again. These policies are the ones that advocate for people to serve a jail term that is equal to the crime they commit. The only difference is they have to serve a longer jail term for the public to feel that justice has been served (Galloway, 2011). America is backing away from such policies that have been known to have a negative impact on crime. America has been using the same approach Canada is initiating, and the negative results have been huge (Butler, 2008). They managed to use tax payers’ money in catering for the growing number of persons in prisons. They have also managed to racialize prisons. This means that only a certain group of people from a certain race are the majority in prison. Canada is now moving further and further away from the United States approach to crime. Critics to the approach claim that Canada’s political heads should use more money on improving the living conditions of the people in Canada. This is the option sought after instead of trying so hard to put people behind bars. The education and employment options need to be expanded for there to be a chance for all citizens of Canada. Putting people behind bars for longer periods beats the purpose of having a court or judicial system (Galloway, 2011). Why bother taking a person to court where they may not get the rightful ruling on their case? Resources in some communities are more needed to deal with the rising situations they have so far (Butler, 2008). These situations include mental instability and illness, and addiction. Aborigines suffer from these conditions than they do crime. Using the resources to combat crime using this approach means that, the money that can be spent on other issues is being reduced. The political heads need to get their heads straight to avoid pulling the society to the ground. Bibliography Butler, D. (2008). Tough-On-Crime Policies Ineffective, US Sentencing Expert Contends. According to Butler, the tough-on-crime policies have been ineffective as they are introduced in Canada. The expected results are not being achieved. Society expects that once a criminal is out of prison, they should not go back to doing crime. With such policies in place, it is hard for them not to go back. Rehabilitation is the most important part of being in prison. Canada is taking on an approach that has seen many countries, for example, the US, abandon. The tough approach seems to use up taxpayer money and crowd prisons with people of certain races. Recidivism among all those from prison has not been reduced since two-thirds go back to prison. It is for this reason that the US government is re-evaluating its approach to crime. Having adopted this approach means Canada is headed in the same direction. Department of Justice, (2011). Public Perception of Crime and Justice in Canada: A Review of Opinion Polls. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news- nouv/spe-disc/2006/doc_31808.html This article talks about the public’s reaction to crime. The public’s assumptions as to which crimes are considered important or minimal is addressed. This is where they believe that crimes against children are most important. This is closely followed by the gang and youth crimes and then violence against women. This article will help make people understand what the main idea about the policies put in place to curb crime in the Canadian society are all about. Without the insight, put in by the author, trying to understand what it is talking about does not go down well with people who are not familiar with the justice system. Geddes, J. (2009). Maclean’s: Are we really soft on crime? Retrieved from, http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/09/are-we-really-soft-on-crime/ Reasons why the Harper administration is using this approach are given to the people. Not enough or good reasons as to the use of this approach on crime have been given. Considering the public alone when it comes to crime is not fair. There are other parties concerned, and their welfare should be looked after to. Issuing mandatory minimum penalties has been the author’s major concern. This should not be the case. This is both the victim, and the perpetrator of these crimes. The author wants people behind bars to get the help they need. This is through rehabilitation and self-assessment. This is for the benefit of society. Serving long prison sentences cannot help them achieve this. Simon Fraser University, (2011). Rethink tough-on-crime direction: researchers. Retrieved from, http://www.sfu.ca/pamr/media-releases/2011/rethink-tough-on-crime-direction- researchers.html The authors insist that this approach cannot be scientifically proven to work. The authors dictate that the research cannot be backed up by any statistics present. They think that a large financial cost is placed on such policies, hence; their failure has a lot of consequences. One gets to see that these policies are not out to benefit the society as they are often perceived. The amount of money being pumped into correctional facilities is huge. This shows that the public’s money is being used to fund a non-functional policy. They do this just so that they could appease the irate public. They indicate that another approach should be looked for. In researching and making such an argument, there is a challenging factor that comes into play. This may be the resistance from the public about the effects such policies have on society. Some may think that this is the only way to combat crime and deal with criminals. However, there are other factors that need to be seen, and how they affect the society entirely. In conclusion, some policies need to be re-evaluated to ensure that everything done is for the betterment of everyone faithful to the development and growth of the Canadian society and the society they may dwell in. References Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating Criminal Justice Policy and Practice. Toronto: Toronto University Press. Butler, D. (2008). Tough-On-Crime Policies Ineffective, US Sentencing Expert Contends. Canada: Ottawa Citizen. Department of Justice, (2011). Public Perception of Crime and Justice in Canada: A Review of Opinion Polls. Canada: Hart Publishing. European Association of Psychology and Law, (2011). Should we be tough on crime? Canada: Hart Publishing. Galloway, G. (2011). Canada warned not to follow U.S. tough on crime ‘mistakes’. Canada: Ottawa Press. Geddes, J. (2009). Maclean’s: Are we really soft on crime? Canada: Toronto Press. Gerlach, N. (2004). The Genetic Imaginary: DNA in the Canadian Criminal Justice System. Canada: Springer. Public Policy and Governance Review. (2011). Cracking down on crime: Is getting tough the way to safer streets? Canada: University of Toronto. The Globe and Mail. (2011). Lawyers attack Harper’s tough-on-crime agenda. Canada: Ottawa Press. The Star, (2011). Public wants get-tough-on-crime approach. Canada: Toronto Press. Read More