Finding the Good in the Truth In Sentencing Act

With two-for-one jailtime now a thing of the past, convicts have more time to engage in rehabilitation within the system.

Bill C-25, known as the the Truth In Sentencing Act, eliminated the “two-for-one” credit which judges were routinely handing out to convicted criminals for time spent in pre-sentencing custody. Apparently, it was about time for such a bill: when it was first introduced in Parliament in 2009, the substantive arguments raised against it were so feeble that none of the opposition parties opposed the bill.

Speaking for the Liberal Party in the House of Commons and in support of the bill on June 8, Keith Martin stated it was “very important legislation.” The NDP supported the passage of the bill. Three days earlier, the Bloc Québécois, not renowned for their “hang ‘em high” approach to criminal justice issues, regarded the bill as, in the words of MP Nicolas Dufour, a “reason to celebrate," and admonished the Conservatives for not having introduced the legislation sooner.

The cross-partisan support was not limited to the federal level of government: the provincial and territorial attorneys-general, containing members of all three major parties, had been repeatedly calling for the two-for-one credit to be eliminated since their annual meeting in 2006.

The two-for-one credit was perverse: it rewarded only the guilty and did nothing for the innocent; it incentivized accused and their counsel to drag out their proceedings; it did nothing to motivate prosecutors to move trials forward quickly since it had no effect on them, their salaries or their career advancement. Empirically, the number and proportion of accused individuals held in pre-sentencing custody increased over the last decade, despite the presence of the two-for-one credit.

Further, it was corrosive to the perception of justice being seen to be done, since even lengthy sentences imposed for violent crimes were routinely effectively wiped out as a result of the credit/ And most demented of all, even though the absence of rehabilitative programs in pre-sentencing custody was cited as an indicator of its harshness, the two-for-one credit resulted in convicted criminals being removed from the corrections system – hence reducing their opportunity to participate in programs aimed at reducing criminal recidivism.

Now that the Truth In Sentencing Act has become law, the reactionaries who opposed it are citing a new argument: the additional $1 billion per year that the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates the Act will oblige governments to spend. Set aside for a moment the inherent hilarity in reading commentators who regularly call for increases on the order of tens of billions of dollars to be spent on social programs suddenly finding religion about the need for budgetary discipline and quailing about an increase which amounts to less than one-half of one per cent of federal program spending.

Instead, note that the billion dollars will be spent on one of the core functions of government: punishing convicted criminals and separating them from society. This is no bad thing: convicted criminals should be punished. When the government spends a billion dollars a year keeping convicted criminals behind bars, that should be recognized for what it is: doing their job.

Keeping convicted criminals behind bars also serves to promote rehabilitation, the preferred goal of those who object to the Truth In Sentencing Act, like The Globe and Mail’s Jeffrey Simpson.

Yet prisoners have access to rehabilitation programs within the corrections system. Advocating for two-for-one sentencing credits means releasing prisoners more quickly – it nonsensically means that the system maximizes the time spent where no rehabilitation programs are offered (in remand facilities) while minimizing the time spent in institutions where those programs are available.

Those who purport to be in favour of rehabilitation and opposed to punishment garrotte their own position by being opposed to the Truth In Sentencing Act – that is, by effectively ensuring that convicted criminals have reduced access to the very programs which may be most beneficial.

If one is fond of the argument is that access to rehabilitative programs should be maximized, the only rational position with respect to the Truth in Sentencing Act is to support it.

Opposing the Truth In Sentencing Act, or working to subvert its provisions, can be oriented towards accomplishing only one goal: ensuring that convicted criminals are released back on the streets as quickly as possible and with as little rehabilitation as possible. Apart from the desires of the convicted, it is difficult, if not impossible, to see whose needs that serves.