Liberal MP Paul Szabo is considered by many to be among the more socially conservative members of the Liberal party. He's pro-life, anti-divorce, anti-gay marriage and worst of all, he supported Michael Ignatieff for the leadership of the Liberals. He did however vote against extending the mission in Afghanistan. I thought this was his only saving grace until I watched him on CPAC today. Mr. Szabo is an exceptionally good orator and a very convincing debater. Members were being heard on one of the Conservatives' new law and order bills. Bill C-10 I think but I could be mistaken. The conservatives have so many law and order bills it's hard to keep track. This one involved mandatory minimums for offences involving firearms. I, of course am completely against mandatory minimums of any kind. I think Judges are the ones best left to decide sentences and shouldn't have their hands tied by politicians. Mr. Szabo isn't against minimums altogether. He supports the idea of using them as a deterrent but rightly points out that long minimums have no more deterrent value then short minimums. This sounds odd until you consider that for those who are going to be deterred, a short time, say, 2 years is enough to do the trick. Most people are not thinking about the consequences and act out of passion or rage or desperation, or for many other reasons. Mandatory minimum sentences have zero affect on their thought process. ( My words, not Szabo's) Mr. Szabo thinks they should be used to deter but not be so long as to interfere with the judges' discretion. He also points out that these are only minimums, the judge is free to sentence bad dudes to much longer. Judges should be allowed to make the sentence fit the crime. I would think many of the law and order types out there would agree with me when it comes to the case of that Saskatoon father who shot his daughter's drug dealing boyfriend. Probably think the judge should have given him a medal. Unfortunately he will be spending the next ten years in jail without parole. A mandatory minimum. Minimums have been in place for years in the U.S. and they have much higher crime rates. Many groups have formed in opposition to them and the Supreme Court of the U.S. has ruled them unconstitutional. Those guys aren't exactly bleeding hearts. Szabo also pointed out the importance of rehabilitation and how our system is pretty good at it and how our contrasting system to that of the Americans seems to be working better. Crime is down and and has been for awhile. All this bluster about getting tough on crime is getting tiresome and it's about time those of us who recognise it speak out. The Democrats in the USA decided to give up this issue in the 90's in order to win centrist voters. It worked, they won, then they passed a completely Republican crime bill helping to turn the U.S. into the police state we now know it as. More people went to jail for smoking pot while Clinton was president than under Reagan and Bush the first combined. I, of course am not speaking for Mr. Szabo and I'm sure he and I would agree on very little. Here is something he and I and every reasonable person should agree on. Mandatory minimums should be used very carefully if used at all.
