When Ideology Trumps Evidence

The Harper Government’s "tough on crime" stance ignores reality in favour of dogma.

In the latest round of the Harper Government’s quest to shut down Insite, the Conservatives will challenge the decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal that would allow Vancouver’s supervised injection facility to remain open.

Established in response to the high rates of overdose deaths, as well as rampant HIV and hepatitis epidemics in Vancouver’s impoverished Downtown East Side during the late 90s, Insite provides addicts with a safe, clean place to inject under medical supervision. Based on the unconventional idea that addiction is a medical condition, not a character flaw, more than a dozen peer-reviewed papers have presented empirical evidence that Insite has been effective in reducing disease transmission and crime around its location while increasing enrolment in drug treatment programs amongst injection drug users.

For the Conservative government, however, research and science are irrelevant when the results are at odds with their own ideology. After playing political games to shut down parliament for the second time in as many years, Harper has since appointed avowed “tough on crime” senators. Many now fear that the Harper Government’s approach to criminal justice policy is guided more by deep-rooted political beliefs than reality.

Instead of “getting tough” through punitive approaches to social problems, it is better to be “smart on crime.” By looking at peer-reviewed research, the comparative experience of other countries, and consulting experts in the field, interventions can be designed to address public policy problems based on evidence rather than short-term political calculations.

Evidence-based approaches to policy are built on the idea that issues of public concern should be informed by peer-reviewed data gathered by independent researchers. The roots of this approach come from medicine, with its use of randomized controlled trials to identify effective treatments for disease. By challenging accepted practice and replacing assumptions with rigorous study, evidence-based medicine has led to improved health outcomes and reduced costs.

In the U.S., the Obama Administration is pursuing a number of initiatives based on this shift in thinking. By expanding the role of research and evaluation, building on the success of past pilot projects, and using the lessons of existent research to guide the revision of existent practice, policies that work are favoured over those that reinforce the biased myths inherent in conventional wisdom.

A recent approach by Senator Jim Webb will create a Blue Ribbon Panel to undergo a top to bottom review of the U.S. criminal justice system. Widely acknowledged as unequal, inefficient, and ultimately ineffective, the overuse of criminal sanctions in the U.S. has resulted in a system that “is failing too many, costing too much, and helping too few.” For example, U.S. prisons now cost taxpayers $60 billion per year and recidivism rates (the percentage of those released from prison who return) remains at over 60 per cent.

While Americans of every political stripe are questioning punitive approaches to criminal justice, the Harper government seems committed to policies that mirror these failed American experiments, even as crime rates continue to drop. By favouring mandatory minimums, consecutive sentencing, and limiting parole, Canada will have to build more prisons, hire more guards, and spend more taxpayer dollars. Instead of basing policy on the ample empirical evidence that suggests the value of education, prevention, and diversion programs, Canada is importing the worst practices of its neighbour to the south.

Indeed, the decision to continue to fight Insite – denying the clear benefits of harm reduction and continuing to view addiction as a criminal act – must be seen in the light of political ideology. The Harper Government is rejecting evidence from the New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal, and the Canadian Medical Association Journal, while providing no empirical basis for its own approach.

The Conservatives’ failure to transparently outline its policy positions is becoming far too common. Canadians might ask themselves: Should we design public policy according to comforting but unproven myths, or should we base it on complex evidence-based realities? Are the lives being saved by Insite of so little value that they ought to be sacrificed in the name of ideological ignorance?