The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

WHITBY FREE PRESS, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4,1987, PAGE 7 PAGE SEVEN Almost daily, the national press carries stories of how some rapist or murderer got off with a light sentence, or how some sick- minded person is out on parole, or how a first offender at some minor offence is given a heavy sentence "as an example to others." Although these cases are usually exceptions, we inevitably con- clude that our criminal justice system is not working. Two such stories appeared on the front page of last Friday's Globe and Mail. The one concerned a man in B.C. who had been convicted for the umpteenth time of drunk driving but while waiting for the courts to hear his case had himself been hit by a drunk driver. The experience had a rather sobering effect and the man had given up drinking. The presiding judge gave the man a six-month jail term. In the other case, a man with a record of indecent assault on young boys pleaded guilty to the knife-point kidnapping of a seven- year-old in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan and three previous cases of sYxual assault in Ontario. He was sentenced to five years in jail but will be eligible for parole after two years. Whether these two sentences are justified depends on your per- spective. If asked why criminals are sent to jail most people would respond "as punishment." But the stated intention of our penal system is the PROTECTION of society by confining and rehabilitating the offender. Doe's the sentencing of the first offender, the drunk driver gone straight, to six months in jail protect us from anything? If we believe that he is now reformed then clearly society is no safer by locking him up. In the second case, society is only protected for the term of his sentence unless the prisoner is successfully treated for his perversion. The problem with our penal system is that although it pays lip- service to rehabilitation there is not a lot of incentive for the prisoner to be rehabilitated. The system claims to be protecting society, yet we incarcerate people who are already reformed and we release people whom we know are not. The pressure to keep criminals off the streets has led to in- credible overcrowding in the jails and FEWER opportunities for rehabilitation. In this environment, it is difficult to create incen- tives to go straight. We are paying for the psychological and physical damage caused by crime; we are paying for the law énforcement to monitor the damage and track down the law-breakers; we are paying the costs of prosecuting these criminals (frequently their dependents who have to go on welfare); we pay for treatment, education, and training such as it is; we pay for a parole system which is supposed to ease these people back into society; and then when it doesn't work we start paying all over again. We need a radical change in how we handle criminals; we need a system which has some real incentive for rehabilitation and en- sures with a reasonable degree of certainty that the released criminal has a real desire to go straight. I believe the problem can be alleviated by a change in focus - in- stead of the punishment fitting the crime the punishment should fit the criminal. The sentencing and release of a convicted felon should rest on his danger to society and his rate of rehabilitation. If a criminal knows that he will not be released until he is rehabilitated, he has a real incentive to get treatment, take courses or whatever. If he gets out and does not go straight he knows that the next time his lack of rehabilitation will be taken into con- sideration. At present, judges have considerable latitude in sentencing and here is where müch of the disrepute of our legal system originates. Inevitably, the sentence that one judge hands out is compared with another and different judges develop reputations for being par- ticularly harsh or lenient. The trend in many parts of North America has been to apply specific formulas in determining sen- tences. This might reduce the bad press caused by variations in sentences but would do nothing to ensure the protection of society. Judges are firstly lawyers and as such they determine the guilt or innocence of the accused according to the law. However, if we ac- cept the fundamental principle that the penal system is there to rehabilitate the law-breaker, then sentencing is far more than a legal matter and should involve psychologists, social workers and a range of other professionals. Consider what might happen if judges determined only guilt or innocence and sentences were determined by professional panels who would also administer and monitor them. Give these boards the resources to train and treat people, the tools to evaluate their success or failure and the latitude to determine how, where and in what manner the convicted would be rehabilitated. Al sentences would be indeterminate, their length determined by whatever period it takes to make the criminal safe for society. No longer would criminals simply wait out their terms on the public dole - they wouldn't be released until they demonstrated a willingness, desire and ability to go straight. No longer would young peopleon first offences be sent away to penitentiaires to mingle with the pros (or be given lght sentences simply to avoid that). No longer would drunks be punished rather than treated. Every sentence would be followed by an equaily indeterminate period of probation. Such a system would drastically alter the power structures of our criminal justice system but considering their failure to date to deliver either justice or public safety, I doubt that we could be much worse off. In the short term, the change would be expensive as the backlog of human waste was gradually cleared away. In the long run the costs would be greatly reduced. The opposition would be long and loud - it affects too many vested interests. Certainly most judges and many Iawyers would oppose it. Criminals would too. By GEORGE ASHE MPP Durham West There is a crisis in almost every area of the insurance industry and it is Ontario's small business sector that is being crushed. It seems that the insurance in- dustry arbitrarily sets rates, declines quotes and walks away from good clients. According to Garth Turner. Business Editor of the Toronto Sun, "something is rotten in Ontario." Drastic increases in insurance rates and the industry's sudden reluctance to take on new risks - particularly in liability coverage - has led to a daily string of headlines. Increases in the cost of liability coverage have run as high was 700 per cent putting some small com- panies in the dilemma of having to reduce their work force, operate without adequate liability protec- tion or close shop. The situation is bad in Ontario. Amost 80 per cent of the small businesses polled here reported premium increases. Among 10,390 companies surveyed across Canada, seven in ten said premiums had climbed by more than 10 per cent, and a quarter had hikes of more than 50 per cent. The crisis in liability insurance became most evident when large companies renewed policies late in 1985. But coverage had been in- creasingly difficult to find even before this date and 1986 was no better. A survey conducted by the Canadian Organization of Small Business revealed 35 per centof its members reported major restric- tions on coverage and/or major cost increases in renewing liability insurance. Another 8 per cent were refused coverage altogether. However, as tough as the situation may be, 94 per cent of the members opposed any government action to take over the insurance industry. The group is urging greater industry self-regulation to promote improved consumer awareness, and the creation of a consumer complaints ombudsman. The Canadian Federation of In- dependent Business says its mem- bers are being used as "cash cows" for the insurance industry. This organization is pushing for the en- couragement of private sector re- insurance capacity along with bet- ter underwriting practices and regulatory changes. In January, 1986 the situation was so bad more than 20 insurance companies in Ontario agreed to form a voluntary association to provide small businesses and non- profit organizations with liability coverage. The association spreads the in- surance risks among a large num- ber of companies so that no single company has more than 5 per cent of the liability risk for each client. However, some businesses might still not be able to get insurance, and in other cases, the premiums are extremely high. Many of the insurance com- panies, on the other hand, never had it so good. They have hiked their premiums and eliminated the risk. The companies are exploiting businesses and consumers. In the United States, the same thing is going on. Delegates to last year's White House Confernece on Small Business agreed that cost of liability insurance was the most critical issue confronting them - they called it the life and death sen- tence of small businesses. In Ontario, the government released the Slater Task Force on Insurance hoping to find some ways to resolve the liability insurance crisis. Despite its provincial status, the report gained national impor- tance. Ontario's small business sector still looks to the provincial gover- nment, hoping to find a light at the end of the tunnel. But whatever the government decides to do, the crisis will have long-lasting repercussions. In fact, it has already changed the face of the industry. The Minister of Financial In- stitutions has finally ordered the Facility Association to reduce costs for the province's drivers who are charged extra high car insurance rates. The association was established by the Compulsory Automobile In- surance Act to provide coverage for those consumers that insurance companies have traditionally regarded as uninsurable risks. Because drivers rëceiving coverage usually have a record of significant Highway Traffic Act or driving-related Criminal Code con- victions, the insurance rates charged by the association are high. But the current insurance crisis has resulted in many drivers being referred to the Facility Association when they should have been in- sured by the private market. In many cases, these drivers were not aware they were being charged the higher rates. * To reduce costs to consumers, insurance brokers have agreed to cap their commissions at $150. Previously, brokers' commissions were based on a flat percentage, sometimes as much as $1,000. * Some drivers have been inad- vertantly referred to the Facility Association by their insurance broker. To prevent this, an in- surance agent must represent at least one insurance company and not just the Facility Association. Also, all drivers must be informed when they are covered by the association. * Levies will be increased for in- surance companies that rely on the association to handle hard-to- insure drivers. * The association has agreed to withdraw its application for premium rate increases and will continue to operate at a loss, with subsidies by participating insuran- ce companies. In my capacity as critic for financial institutions, I questioned whether only 1.3% of private drivers are insured by the Facility Association as indicated by the minister. From the calls received at my constituency office, I believe more than 1.3% of Ontario drivers are now paying higher rates to the association. Most Ontario drivers need a well- deserved break on insurance fees. It has taken over a year for the minister to make this small step. We urge the minister to take fur- ther action to bring insurance rates under. control. What about a rate approval tribunal where companies would justify proposed rate in- creases? - - -»" a le ýexý 'A av àý av je 99,19 mi