“Truth in Sentencing” Act Will Cost More than Original Estimate

According to the CBC, a report from the parliamentary budget officer contends that the new legislation, The Truth In Sentencing Act, will cost more than the original estimate of $2 billion: $1 billion just to implement the program; and, billions of dollars more to maintain the program.

Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page said on Tuesday June 22, 2010 that the construction of new correctional facilities will cost $1.8 billion and a further $618 million is needed to annually to operate such correctional facilities.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews disagrees with the findings of the parliamentary budget officer. Towes believes that while it is true that more individuals will spend time in prison, however new prisons will not be needed because provincial prisoners will be moved to federal prisoners and individuals with lighter sentences will be released into the community. Conversely Page states that Canada lacks the space necessary to keep such a high volume of prisoners, and that 13 new prisons will have to be constructed in order to allow such legislation to be implemented effectively.

The estimated cost of running prisons in Canada will be likely in the range of $2.8 billion a year, which is a substantial jump from the $2.2 billion we are currently paying. This does not include the cost of building new prisons – an estimated $1.8 billion?

Furthermore, it is believed that the cost of correctional services will double by the year 2015-2016 as the cost will jump from $4.4 billion a year to $9.5 billion a year.

While the government can’t agree on the exact cost of this legislation, one thing is certain: it will cost us taxpayers a significant amount of money.

Where the feds generate funding for such a plan? A tax increase? By shorting transfer payments to provinces, which could result in lower budgets for health and education? That’s ridiculous. Putting someone who is no danger to the community in custody BEFORE they’ve been found guilty is bad enough; making us pay for it is a travesty.

Accused individuals have a right to a speedy trial, and if they are not provided with such a right there should be some sort of compensation in the form of two for one credit. Either way you look at this legislation, it does more harm than it does good for the public or the accused.

Alleged Gangster’s Rights Violated in Prison

Justice Mark McEwan said in a lengthy ruling released on June 9, 2010 that alleged gangster Jamie Bacon’s constitutional rights were violated when he was subjected to inhumane conditions when he was held at the Surrey Pre-trial Centre. The prison warden directly violated Jamie Bacon’s section 7 right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

According to the Vancouver Sun, Jamie Bacon was kept in inhumane conditions which included being kept in isolation for 23 hours a day, having his phone rights taken away and having his visits curtailed without any reason. Justice McEwan stated that the condition in which Jamie Bacon was kept in clearly “threatened the security of his person (which includes both a physical and psychological dimension) by the unlawful deprivation of his rights for a unlawful purpose.” He further noted that the corrections guards acted for the police in keeping Jamie Bacon in such horrendous conditions – this appears to indicate some sort of collaboration between the two agencies.

It is important to keep in mind that while Jamie Bacon has been charged and arrested for his role in the infamous “Surrey Six” murders, he has not been proven guilty in the court of law. No human being should have their rights violated. These rights are absolute; they are not contingent upon a set of criteria or circumstances. These rights are the cornerstone of democracy. I also believe that this ruling sets limits on what government agencies such as the police can do. I think the majority of the people will agree with me when I say that we should not live in a society where the police can do whatever they like. There must be limits on police powers. This gross violation of human rights could have happened to anyone, and therefore it is important to remember that there must be a balance between the rights of the police to investigate – but that the rights of a citizen charged, but convicted of no crime, must be paramount.