“If you take that away, you are going to have people who just sit in their cells,” Prof. Manson said. “You are going to have people who are not responsive to the positive parts of the correctional regime.
“If the goal is to do something that reduces crime, none of this legislation is based on sound evidence. It will be costly. And it may get votes, but it won't reduce crime. It is harshness for harshness's sake.”
More features of the American scene are almost certain to be on the way. Prof. Roberts said he expects to see the partial privatization of prisons – a move that would probably lead to cutting back programs in order to save money.
He also predicted federal moves to strip any form of creature comfort from the penitentiary system: “The idea is that you make prisons as austere and unpleasant as possible, and people won't want to come back.”
And where are the opposition political parties, as this trend continues to take root?
“They have just disappeared into the woods,” Prof. Manson said, citing the presentence-custody bill as a prime example.
In the Commons, the Liberals voted for the bill to escape being labelled as soft on crime. When the legislation reached the Senate, three important amendments were added by the majority Liberals. But when it came time for a final vote, so few Liberals turned up that the amendments were defeated.
“The opposition parties are terrified of having someone point a finger at them and say: ‘You're soft on crime,'” Prof. Manson said.
“But when a minority government can ram through these bills, there is something wrong. These bills represent a lack of respect for evidence, research and methodology – and a supreme confidence that they know what people want.”
Kirk Makin is The Globe and Mail's justice reporter.
