Commentary
The first duty of a justice system is justice. That means protecting the innocent, respecting the rights of the accused, holding offenders accountable, and removing demonstrably dangerous people from the opportunity to harm others. Compassion and rehabilitation belong within that system, but neither can become an excuse for abandoning public safety.
Canada has lost sight of that balance over the past decade. The federal government pursued criminal justice reforms intended to reduce incarceration, address inequities, and place greater emphasis on restraint and rehabilitation. Some responded to legitimate constitutional concerns, but good intentions are not a measure of good government. Results are, and the results should concern every Canadian.
The federal government’s own National Justice Survey found that only 19 percent of Canadians were confident the criminal justice system is fair to all people, while just 24 percent expressed confidence that it is accessible to everyone who needs it. Nearly half said they lacked confidence in its fairness. Independent polling has reflected similar frustration, particularly about repeat violent offenders being released on bail and a justice system perceived as too lenient toward violent crime.
Canadians are not demanding vengeance. They are demanding competence, and there is an important distinction between the two. The presumption of innocence and due process are indispensable, and low-risk, first-time and non-violent accused should not be unnecessarily incarcerated before trial. But those principles cannot require society to ignore demonstrated risk.
A repeat violent offender with a history of weapons offences, breached conditions, and outstanding charges does not present the same risk as a first-time non-violent accused. A justice system unable to distinguish effectively between them is not compassionate; it is failing at risk management. The Liberal government has finally acknowledged parts of the problem through recent bail reforms strengthening reverse-onus provisions and directing courts to give greater consideration to repeat offending, outstanding charges, and public safety.
Those changes are welcome, but legislation is only as effective as the system administering it. Police must have confidence that arresting dangerous offenders matters, prosecutors require the resources and information necessary to present risk effectively, and courts need sufficient capacity to hear cases within constitutional timelines. Victims also need timely information about release decisions and conditions affecting their safety.
Court delay is not an abstract legal problem; it is a governance problem. When serious charges are stayed because governments have failed to provide adequate prosecutors, courtrooms, judges, legal-aid capacity, or modern disclosure systems, Canadians do not see administrative complexity. They see justice denied, and they are right to demand better.
Sentencing requires the same clarity. Rehabilitation and alternatives to incarceration make sense for many non-violent offenders, but serious violence, firearms offences, and chronic violent recidivism demand meaningful consequences. Judicial discretion should remain an important part of Canadian justice, but discretion cannot become unpredictability, particularly when radically different consequences for similar serious offences undermine deterrence and public confidence.
We also need to restore victims to their proper place in the justice system. Victims should not be peripheral observers in a process dominated by institutions, lawyers, and offenders. They deserve timely information, meaningful participation and confidence that release conditions designed to protect them will actually be enforced.
Most importantly, government must start measuring the justice system by outcomes rather than intentions. Canadians deserve to know how many high-risk offenders commit violent crimes while on bail, how often bail conditions are breached, how long serious cases take to reach trial, and how frequently prosecutions are abandoned because of delay. We should also measure violent recidivism after sentencing and release, publicly report those results, and hold governments accountable for improving them.
For too long, Canadian public policy has confused compassion with the absence of consequences, but that is a false choice. A civilized justice system can rehabilitate those capable of rehabilitation while incapacitating those who pose a serious danger to others. Rights and responsibilities are not opposing principles, nor are fairness and firmness.
The state has few responsibilities more fundamental than maintaining public order and protecting innocent people from foreseeable harm. When it cannot perform that function reliably, confidence in the justice system and ultimately in government itself begins to erode. Public safety is not merely one competing consideration among many—it is one of the principal reasons the justice system exists.
Canadians are not asking for a harsher society; they are asking for a safer one. They want a justice system that protects the innocent, respects the rights of the accused, supports victims, rehabilitates where rehabilitation is possible, and restrains those who repeatedly demonstrate that they are dangerous. That is not radical criminal justice policy—it is the balance Canadians have every right to expect from their justice system.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
