Do you know what our government is doing? (do they?)

Ultimately, it comes down to what those of us, with the problem in our laps, are able to do. We may be winded by malaise or cynicism, befuddled by the apparent incoherence of competition, or hobbled by our own or adversaries' anger, but these are all challenges that can be bravely faced, accepted and, sometimes, dissolved by the wisdom held within us. There are other impediments though, frustratingly constructed by our public representatives, that seem designed to stymie the worth of our best, most useful efforts. Specifically, I'm talking about the creeping incidence of laws creating mandatory jail sentences.

Over the course of its administration, the Federal Conservative government has introduced several pieces of criminal justice legislation under righteous-sounding baners such as "Tackling Violent Crime" and "Truth in Sentencing". All are aimed at winnowing and, in some instances ending, judges' discretion (and thus lawyers' sentencing advocacy), as having resulted in an unbalanced, over-liberal landscape that rewards wrongdoers and salts the wounds of victims. The perception is of courts who gleefully spend their days slapping law-abiding society in the face.

These legislative volleys, despite the crystelline Newspeak with which they are heralded, are driven by political and ideological gunpowder, not by evidence that they will actually do anything to make Canada (already - if you are not Aboriginal, addicted, and/or desperately poor - one of the safest places in the world) any more secure. But, all the same, they are easily applauded by the populace, and have sparked little dissent or debate in influential circles.

So why am I aggrieved? Unlike our government, I cannot assume to command the complete Truth on this or any issue. But I can tell you from experience that the consequences of this agenda will fall heaviest, and with the least justice, upon our most vulnerable citizens.

Imagine: you are being pummelled in an unfair fight; you are drunk; you retaliate with the nearest object; someone is suddenly bloodied. Such an act, according to our law, can constitute an aggravated assault. Before, a judge might be able to look at a spectrum of factors in deciding what to do: Has this happened before? Is the guy ok? Are you working, supporting a family, sorry for what you did, controlling the roots of it? People who commit crimes can be all these things. Before, I might be able to walk into a courtroom with a client big enough to admit a wrong, but not 'bad' enough to be sent to jail.

Now, impotent to even influence whether our not they will be going to jail, my clients and I are left with cold and polar options: plead not guilty (in spite of what one knows), forcing the prosecution to prove its case through the slow, heavy mechanism of a trial, or succumb to the certainty that an acceptance of responsibility is going to put them in jail. Often, our moral/mental cupboards swept bare of other resources and imagination, jail is indeed made unavoidable, but this need not always be the case. In an increasing number of otherwise reasonable circumstances, however, we are no longer allowed to ask.