Pros And Cons Of Mandatory Sentencing

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing in Recent Legislation: Is it Effective?

The Canadian government has been sending mixed messages regarding current punishment practices in this country. It has a strong commitment, as do the provinces, to using community-based corrections. At the same time, recent federal legislation and amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada are encouraging tougher penalties, most of which are mandatory prison time for gun-related offences. Do these amendments go far enough? Should they be used for other criminal code offences as well? Do they provide a deterrent to offenders? And are we doing enough inside and outside our penal institutions to support these sentencing initiatives? These questions will look to be answered in

This is based off the concept of bifurcation. In short, Garland argues that politicians propose tough penal sanctions as a way to simply promote the idea that the state has the problem of crime under control. The idea is relatively popular, and has brought governments to power in the US during Bill Clinton’s Presidency, the United Kingdom during’s Tony Blair run as PM, and now in Canada during Stephen Harper’s current run as PM. This theory of bifurcation can be justified by examining the fact that as Harper has established himself as having a stance that is tough-on-crime, all crime rates -- including violent crime -- have been trending downward over the last twenty years. Mallea accuses the Harper government of rationalizing the spending of billions of dollars on new prisons and for legislation that will put thousands more behind bars by falsely insisting that Canadians are in the midst of a crime epidemic, though this is not the case, as it was just previously stated. The only plausible theory as to why the government and society stigmatizes guns is due to their purpose. For example, a car's purpose is to transport a person from point A to point B. It can be modified for other uses like murder, but transportation is its primary purpose. A gun’s intended purpose, however, is to kill. Some of this stigma around guns can be mitigated through education, but a lot of it will never disappear simply because - unlike almost anything else that people are allowed to own - a gun’s sole purpose is to kill. It seems as if the current administration is looking to capitalize on this stigmatization of guns that is shared amongst themselves and voters. The older population is targeted by introducing frivolous laws - some of which target youth - that "appear" to be making a difference, but in reality, minimum sentences do not deter