Conservatives and Remand

Conservatives love the law & order issues. So: Here is Bob Tarantino grousing about judges’ practice of counting pre-conviction time in custody as double-time:

Counting pre-trial time served as equivalent to twice as much post-sentencing time served is found nowhere in any legislation. Judges just made it up. The basis is some bizarre calculus that because the accused is being held without the benefit of having been convicted, the time served is somehow “worse” or “more punishment” than serving time once you’re actually convicted and sentenced.

It is a practice, as Tarantino points out, that is completely aconstitutional (as opposed to unconstitutional, which seems to entail a violation of the constitution) practice, but one which, in my view, is warranted. Judges, as one of Tarantino’s commenters points out, draw a distinction between hard and soft time. Strangely enough, pre-conviction time in remand counts as hard while time in actual prisons counts as soft. This might strike people who claim to be concerned for justice as strange: Why would people who have not yet been convicted of a crime (if indeed they will be) be given a rougher ride by the penal systems than are convicted criminals?

A friend of mine emerged from a tough time in his life a better person, but in the meantime provided several insights on the subject. He confirmed that remand was hellish and that being sent to an actual prison seemed like a favor from the state. He explained that such an arrangement takes pressure off the actual prisons, but also hypothesized upon a more ominous reason. “In remand,� he recounted with something of a distant, haunted look in his eyes, “they try to break you, to break your spirit. That way it’s easier to get you through the trial process.� And so: the more sadistic prison guards are recruited to remand through lower pay, the nutritional value of food is kept appropriately low, opportunities to actually move around or even go outside are restricted, etc. etc..

Which is all the more annoying since remand is affected almost entirely by economic status. My friend had no source of income or credit and was therefore unable to post bail. Anyone from a middle-class family, with the vast amounts of credit available to such groupings, can usually post bail rather easily and therefore be free from the disadvantages of pre-trial jailing. Not only will they be free of the excesses of remand, they will have the opportunity to pursue outside counseling related to their crimes. If found guilty, a judge will lend heavy consideration to whether the criminal has already gone through counseling when determining the sentence.

Remand, it seems to me, is a necessary evil. I don’t like the idea of anyone who has not been convicted of a crime serving “hard time.� That said, it is necessary to keep pre-trial prisoners when a judge determines that bail is not appropriate, which hardly ever happens. Instead, remand has become an integral component of the trial process through its biasing of defendants’ ability to construct a good case and reduction of potential jail time beforehand. Worse still, it is one based entirely upon the economic status of the defendant.

That bothers me, as it should anyone with an interest in the fair administration of justice in Canada. That category, it seems to me, should include Canadian conservatives.

Crossposted to Rempelia Prime