"Getting Tough on Crime".. is this a misconceived anti-conservative idea?

Not MY idea of "Conservatism"..

Are you a "conservative"?

I'm guessing most of my readers will say yes, though I do have a few pesky self-described liberals who stop by from time to time.

Well.

If you are a conservative or consider yourself a conservative, you might ask yourself what that means to you.

Does it mean having less government, from the point of view of being more "libertarian"?

Does it mean having less government, from the point of view of reducing taxes?

Does it mean eschewing so-called "intellectual" answers to problems dreamed up by utopian sociologists that are passed off as "new science", but so often are proven to be little more than modern-day "voodoo". 

I'm hoping it doesn't mean being small-minded, intolerant and refusing to open your mind to think critically about the world around you.  If it is the latter, you are probably best leaving now.. because I want you to think just a little bit for a moment.

Right now the Harper government, the government that I support, the party that I hold a membership in, the party that I donate money to - is putting forth a "get tough on crime agenda", in particular, Bill C-25, the "Truth in Sentencing Act".

Now, the first thinking I want you to do is to ask yourself, "Why do I think that is a good idea?"

Presumably, you would suppose that tougher sentencing is a good plan.  Presumably you think that as you watch 24 hour, 7 day a week news, and online reporting, and twitter and so forth commenting on crimes every day, you want it to stop.  Or at least go down. 

So.

What if I were to tell you, that probably, the Conservative agenda will not reduce crime rates.

As a conservative.

As someone who wants fewer government employees eating up your tax dollars, as someone who wants less government bureaucracy, not more - would that cause you concern?

And what if I were to tell you that the effort is going to increase costs to the tax-payer of perhaps five billion dollars or more, according to the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer?

As someone, again, who might want to lower your taxes, or as least assure that your tax dollars are collected and used efficiently, would that cause you concern as well?

Well, then, think about this for just a moment. 

The U.S. Department of Justice published a discussion document called the Crime and Justice Atlas 2000, to discuss issues related to the improvement of responses to crime in the United States.

In that paper, there is a brief summary of the research of Susan Turner, Associate Director for Research, Criminal Justice Program, RAND Corporation.  You may have heard about the RAND Corporation, it is a massive U.S. think-tank, funded partly by government and partly by private enterprise - and is a corporation which has typically been criticized as overly connected to U.S. military interests and has seldom been criticized as overly "liberal" in its leanings.

In her summary, Susan Turner has this to say about the impact of "Truth in Sentencing" and "Three Strikes" Legislation in the U.S., which have been brought forth since the early 90's:

As part of an ongoing evaluation of violent offender incarceration and truth-in sentencing incentive grants, RAND analyzed a nationwide database of index
crime reports, state and federal prison admissions, and state correctional system
expenditures from 1986 to 1996 to determine the effectiveness of get-tough policies.
The evidence so far suggests that such strategies—at least in the early stages
of implementation—have not resulted in any major changes.

Although it is still too early to make a final judgment, RAND found that three
strikes and truth-in-sentencing laws have had little significant impact on crime
and arrest rates.

So.  Then.

Possibly our current government, our current "conservative" government is embarking upon a plan to spend upwards of $5 billion or more on a plan which is based upon some "utopian" ideal which may be little more than some "voodoo" response to reducing crime.  Which, according to Susan Turner, may well have "little significant impact on crime and arrest rates."

Consider how up in arms we were over the Liberals spending $3.4 billion or so on the Gun Registry.  An idea that Liberals and their supporters "felt" would reduce crime, but which most conservatives see as simply a waste of tax dollars on a plan that won't work.

Are we prepared to do the same think with THIS government?  Are you, as a Conservative, supportive of a bill which will cost us $5 billion, that we "feel" will reduce crime, but which may turn out to be a waste of tax dollars on a plan that won't work?

Not this Conservative.