Mandatory minimum sentences are a highly controversial part of the Canadian justice system and the leader of the federal Liberal Party, Justin Trudeau, wants to rethink some of them.

The mechanism is used to address concerns over leniency in the justice system but their effectiveness is an oft-contested issue. The majority of the minimum sentences apply to crimes involving minors, sexual assault and firearms, but the Conservative government recently added mandatory minimum sentences for relatively minor scale grow-ops as well.

Trudeau took to Twitter on November 10 to answer questions from his followers, including one asking whether he would reconsider some of the newest minimum sentences imposed by Stephen Harper's government. Trudeau responded, “I (and the Liberal party) trust the Judiciary to do their jobs well, so yes.” He is essentially saying that the justice system is capable of achieving appropriate sentencing without needing an underlying system of mandatory penalties.

The reason mandatory minimum sentences are dangerous is their rigidity. In a unique case in Winnipeg in 2011, Justice John Menzies criticized the mandatory minimum sentence for carrying an unregistered loaded handgun. The accused grew up in a remote community and despite being shot at and threatened after moving to Winnipeg, had a clean record until police spot-checked him in a park and found the firearm. Judge Menzies took issue with the minimum sentence because he recognized that the accused felt the need to arm himself because of attempts on his life and posed no perceivable threat. The circumstances were extraordinary, but they serve to illustrate the danger of minimum sentences.

A report to the Department of Justice by University of Ottawa Criminology Professor Thomas Gabor claims that instituting minimum sentences can actually backfire. He theorizes that acquittal rates could increase if juries are hesitant to convict for a minor crime with an unduly severe sentence. The report goes on to specifically target minimum sentences for drug-related offenses, based on empirical evidence from international drug policies. The findings state that, “Severe MMS (Mandatory Minimum Sentences) seem to be least effective in relation to drug offences ... Drug consumption and drug-related crimes seem to be unaffected, in any measurable way, by MMS.”

In an interview with The Globe and Mail last November, the president of the council representing prosecutors, Lisa Blais, noted, “You have more complex cases combined with also more volume of cases and I think that's a very dangerous recipe for the right to a speedy trial.”

There are two common perspectives on the justice system that couldn't be more contradictory. One focuses on rehabilitating the offender while the other one seeks justice for the victim. The role of the judiciary system is to strike a balance between the two, ensuring the debt to society is paid but that the offender can reintegrate with society afterwards. In his attempt to appear tough on drugs, the Prime Minister continues to ignore the qualitative and quantitative evidence against mandatory minimum sentences in favour of his penchant to punish.
Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.