Opinion: Mandatory Minimums, No Bail, for Violent Offenders

This morning I watched a disturbing video of a carjacking attempt in Hamilton, Ontario. Incidents like this are completely unacceptable and, unfortunately, seem to be becoming more common in our cities. I had some interesting discussion with a peer, and I'd like to share here to hear some other voices on the subject. It is likely to be a nation-wide topic in the soon coming federal election. My intent is to have my thinking challenged with respectful, thoughtful debate.

POSITION AGAINST MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCING:

I know it feels like locking offenders away for longer would make neighbourhoods safer, but all of the evidence I've seen evidence suggests mandatory minimums don't result in lower rates of crime. Here's a note from the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, for instance: https://www.ccja-acjp.ca/pub/en/positions/mandatory-minimum-sentences/

Here's a review by StatCan that looked at the impact of mandatory minimums implemented in the 2000s (some of which were struck down as unconstitiutional in 2015). The tl;dr is that the rates for those offenses increased under the mandatory minimum regime: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/54844-eng.htm

Do you have any evidence that suggests mandatory minimums would have a positive impact here?

POSITION FOR MINIMUM SENTENCING, A REPLY:

I've studied these positions in my undergraduate (Criminology) and had, for many years, assumed them to be correct. While it does make sense to me that "offenders simply do not consider the length of sentence when deciding whether or not to commit an offense," and that mandatory minimums (i.e. longer prison sentences) "may actually increase the likelihood of recidivism" due to association with other criminals, etc, I believe that mandatory minimums, when paired with effective rehabilitation, could address both keeping our streets safe as well as recidivism. Your commonly held position fails to address two key questions:

1. How does taking criminals off the streets for longer not make our neighbourhoods safer?

I would argue that by keeping violent offenders incarcerated for extended durations, we reduce their immediate ability to commit further crimes within our communities. Whether or not this serves as an effective deterrent for committing crimes, does not change the fact that our communities are safer during the time these individuals are imprisoned. Additionally, longer sentences may provide more time for rehabilitation programs to take effect, which leads to my second question.

2. If putting criminals away for longer "MAY" (emphasis added here) actually increase likelihood of recidivism, how is that a failure in policy instead of a failure in our system's ability to rehabilitate offenders?

The potential increase in recidivism highlights the need for a more effective rehabilitation system rather than dismissing the concept of longer sentences altogether. While I believe it's common sense that longer sentences will make our communities safer (just by the fact that they keep violent offenders off our streets for longer), it's true that without these supportive measures, longer incarceration periods alone will not yield the desired long-term result of our justice system, which is ultimately rehabilitation and reintegration.