The Laval police chief believes that the minimum sentences that the Trudeau government wants to abolish must remain, to avoid the possible complacency of judges.
• Read also: Gun violence: police chiefs want tougher sentences
“In real life, what happens is that lawyers are going to shop around for judges who they think will be favorable to their case,” said Pierre Brochet, the head of the Laval police and president of the Association of Quebec Police Directors (ADPQ).
Mr. Brochet believes that this situation leads to “different sentences depending on the philosophy of the judge who is in place”.
The police chief insisted that he made the remarks “with all due respect to the judiciary”, but that he was particularly concerned about the fallout from the bill as the country faces a crisis of gun violence.
He was before the Justice Committee, which is examining a Liberal bill to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for certain serious crimes committed with firearms as well as for possession of drugs.
For the chief of police, mandatory sentences avoid “inequalities between judgments”.
Justice system bogged down
The Trudeau government argues instead that these minimum sentences have perverse effects by contributing to the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people and black people in federal prisons.
The proposed reform suggests making it easier to use conditional sentences for offenders who do not represent a danger to public safety.
It would also be easier to offer drug treatment programs, instead of laying criminal charges.
Other experts who appeared before the committee also noted that minimum sentences bog down the justice system.
“People tend to plead not guilty instead of negotiating a sentence, as is the case when there are no minimum sentences,” said Catherine Latimer of the John Howard Society of Canada.
1
