More Prisons? Dumb Idea

More prisons, more prisoners, more time behind bars, and of course, more millions to make all this come true. Yet as Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Justice Minister Vic Toews rush to embrace this U.S.-style get-tough-on-crime agenda, millions of Canadians are rightly asking the tough question: where in the world has this strategy worked?

Does diverting money from already strapped social programs, education and health care to build prisons and fill the courts really provide a safe and decent place for Canadians to call home? The great tough-on-crime policy has its birth in the United States, which leads the world in throwing people in jail. In 1972, the United States had about 300,000 Americans behind bars, but following decades of political posturing for longer and mandatory sentences, the number has climbed to a world record of 2.2 million prisoners. It's not cheap either. The country now spends $58 billion per year, up from $8 billion in 1982. For African Americans, the number of prisoners are staggering. Between 1980 and 2000, there were three times as many African Americans in jail as there were in college.

How out of line is the United States with the rest of the world? With only five per cent of the world's population within its borders, the United States had 20 per cent of the world's prisoners. In comparative terms, the latest figures show that for every 100,000 citizens, the United States has 724 citizens doing time. Yet, despite a dramatic leap in prison population, there is no drop in the number of Americans who are afraid to walk near their homes after dark.

Stockholm should be dangerous

Let's turn the "getting tough on crime" theory on its head. The country with the lowest prison population per capita is Iceland, with 37 prisoners per 100,000 citizens. Sweden has 75, Denmark has 72 and Finland has 71 per 100,000. Here at home in Canada, we have 116 per 100,000. Using Stephen's Harper's right-wing logic, the United States would have to be the safest place on the planet whereas poor old Iceland, followed closely by the Scandinavian countries, must be really dangerous because, after all, their criminals must be running around free. Here, in Canada, we'd be safer than most of these folks but still a long way from the safe streets of America.

Ask yourself the obvious question: which capital city would you like to be dropped into at midnight and left to fend for yourself? Copenhagen (9 homicides in 2001) Stockholm (18 homicides), Ottawa (3 homicides) or Washington, D.C. (231 homicides)? Common sense tells us not only where we would like to be dropped (and not be dropped), but also where we'd like to raise our children and live our lives.

The United States dramatically increased its prison population and experienced no significant decline in crime. In fact, a number of states are scrambling to reverse the impact of filling their jails. Leading the pack has been New York City, which dramatically reduced its prison population to 8,000 from 20,000 in the 1990s. At the same time, homicide rates dropped 69 per cent and violent crime dropped 64 per cent. In contrast, Idaho and Tennessee increased prison populations (by 175 percent and 111 percent respectively) while experiencing simultaneous increases in violent crime. In 2003, five states repealed mandatory minimum sentences and 11 implemented mandatory treatment for drug cases, instead of jail.

American criminologist and former head of New York City's Probation and Correction agencies, Michael Jacobsen documents this trend in his book Downsizing Prisons: How to Reduce Crime. He concludes that there is "no apparent relationship between increased use of prisons and crime reductions."

Prisons as corporate boondoggle

For Stephen Harper to claim he is creating safe cities by throwing more people in jail for longer periods is like Enron Executives claiming they were helping their shareholders by doing a little bookwork on the side.

Instead of "getting tough on crime," Americans have spent billions spawning a new industry of private prisons. It's become a huge corporate boondoggle where the bottom line is simple -- the more prisoners, the more profits.

Researchers in the United States report that spending $1 million to help disadvantaged kids will result in a reduction of 258 crimes per year. Parent training and support for troubled kids will prevent 160 crimes per year, compared to a reduction of only 60 crimes if the money is used to build and operate prisons. Drug-related treatment is 15 times more effective in stopping crime than putting addicts in prison.

No one says jails, judges and courts aren't required. But the real crimestoppers are decent societies with a degree of equality, human rights and hope, supported by a strong social safety net. Combined with enlightened drug laws that deal with the medical consequences of addictions, these are tried and true recipes for safe societies. It is, after all, more justice, not more jails that creates safe and livable countries.

In the coming weeks, let's get tough. Let's get tough on U.S.-driven solutions that have failed everywhere else, and send a clear message to Stephen Harper: bulging prison populations are a sign of failure, not success. If the Tories are serious about public safety, let's shelve the blueprints for more prisons and dust off the plans for a national childcare program. Now that's crimestopping that works.

Jim Sinclair is president of the B.C. Federation of Labour. The Tyee receives some funding from the B.C. Fed.