As noted previously, I think that the
Canadian governments proposed amendment to the Criminal Code so that some
murderers would spend longer in jail without the possibility of parole is at
best misguided. Not only am I concerned as to whether there is any
justification to raising this issue six months before an election (except for
the obvious reasoning of a government that has little to show for the past four
years), but I am also curious as to why they have created a two tier system in
terms of offenses and punishment. It is proposed that only murderers who sexually abusing or kidnap their
victim, those who engage in terrorist activities, those who are particularly
brutal (how does one define that?) or those who kill a police or corrections
officer will receive the 35 year sentence without the possibility of parole (CBC).
Statistics Canada, doing what it does better than any other comparable
agency, has, on the same page mentioned in my previous post, listed what
professions are most at risk of being killed on the job. In 2013 (the last year
a report is available) out of the 505 homicides that occurred in Canada, only
one was a police officer(this number feels too low, but even in the USA which
generally has a much higher homicide rate and ten times the population only
lost 103 officers to homicide in 2013 (New York Times)). Other professions are at a much greater risk, most notably those
who were involved in illicit activities (Stats Canada). But it may be that we don't
see them as victims that need special mention or perhaps it is that they do not
have family members who vote.
I appreciate that being a police officer is a difficult, demanding and potentially
an emotionally exhausting job. I understand that the majority of officers on a
daily basis have no way of knowing whether or not they will be placed in a
dangerous situation that day and that they still willingly go to work. I had
the opportunity of working with a number of police officers throughout my career
and the majority were decent, competent human beings. But I am unconvinced that
their lives were more special or more valuable than someone who gets killed
because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. For example I am not at
all sure that the life and family of a clerk at the corner milk store who gets
shot and killed as a by-product of the store being robbed is worthy of less
consideration than a police officer's life and family. In fact the clerk may
deserve more. Unlike the police officer, the clerk is probably getting minimum
wage, has no benefit package, no union and very little choice about doing the
job. They must know, especially in some parts of our cities that they are at a
significant risk of being hurt. Similarly a nurse chooses to work at an
abortion clinic is at some risk of being hurt. Should her life and family been
seen through a different set of lenses in terms of how the murderer is
punished.
While I appreciate that the government is trying to appear that they are
supportive of the police and their special relationship with the public, their
time would be better served looking at the other classifications of homicide
victims. What can we do to stop them from being victims in the first place. Why
are sex workers in the highest risk group (Stats Canada) to be murdered? Why is there such an over-representation of First
Nations women being killed each year as compared to the percentage of the
population? Is it significant that there is a slight increase in the number of
youths committing murder? Or that more young people committed suicide in Canada
in 2009 than were murdered in 2013 (Stats Canada).
There are a lot of questions that need to be answered. Threatening to
punish a handful of people more harshly strikes me as a bit of misdirection.
*Thanks to my son who many years ago pointed out to me the inherent
wrongness in valuing a police officer's life over another's life.
No comments:
Post a Comment