On deterrents

Rafe Mair points out what the Cons would do if their goal was really to reduce crime in Canada rather than to be seen as "tough":

Putting more people behind bars for longer terms will have one obvious consequence: we will spend a hell of lot more money, over $80,000 a year per prisoner in federal prisons. And we'll need more capital to build more prisons...

What happens if we take the money the Tories' new policy will cost and make a better parole system? A system which is strictly enforced so that there really will be a deterrent to the parolee who knows that any breach of his parole will see him back behind bars.

This will require a better and thus more expensive parole system, but wouldn't that be a better way to spend our tax dollars than more jails and longer sentences?

Assuming that there's a need to make any massive changes to a system which has already produced a declining crime rate for the past 15 years, the short answer is "yes". But as Mair points out, the Cons aren't the least bit interested in asking the question to begin with.

That said, it's worth noting that even using the language of "deterrence", Mair's plan makes a lot more sense than anything the Cons are proposing. After all, it's not as if any of the crimes included in the Cons' proposed reforms are subject to a low maximum sentence...meaning that resources to improve the "risk of detection" element of deterrence are likely to produce far more bang for the buck than incremental increases in length of sentence. And the potential return on investment is all the larger with respect to parole, given that the nature of parole requirements is to keep offenders moving in the right direction at the very point where they'll have the choice whether to reintegrate, or to continue down the criminal path.

Sadly, it's doubtful that Toews and company are interested in considering the possibility of putting their money toward something more effective. Instead, the Cons' plan is to cultivate public outrage rather than rationally evaluating which action will best prevent crime in the future. And if the of a system which focuses less effort on reintegrating offenders into society is to produce yet more crime for the Cons to be "tough" on in the future, then so much the better.