Does “tough-on-crime” mean bringing back the death penalty, Mr. Fantino?

When I heard that Julian Fantino was going to be the Conservative candidate in the November 29th Vaughan byelection I ran out and purchased his book, “Duty: The Life of a Cop.” Though I’d argue that “Harperland: The Politics of Control” is the better read (in terms of the quality of writing and the importance of the lesson for all Canadians) the fact that Mr. Fantino is a candidate for the Conservative Party of Canada makes the thoughts he recorded in this book (written in 2007) quite pertinent.

The Globe and Mail described Fantino perfectly here:

“For all his branding as a cop’s cop, Julian Fantino has for many years come off more like a politician in police uniform. Now, if all goes according to plan, the former chief of the Toronto and Ontario forces will get to take his natural place in Ottawa.“

He has always been a politician, which gives added relevance to what he wrote just three short years ago in “Duty.” However, there has been a dearth of coverage so far in this byelection on the controversial positions/statements taken/made in this book. So, over the next week, this blog hopes to shine a light on what Julian Fantino, candidate for the Stephen Harper’s Conservatives in Vaughan, has written and the implications of what Mr. Fantino is not saying on the campaign train but what he clearly, wholeheartedly believes.

——————————————————————————————————————————————–

Julian Fantino and the Death Penalty: In His Own Words.

From “Duty.” Chapter 10. The Trial of the Munros. Page 165:

“Judge Callaghan told Jamie [Munro] he would be imprisoned for life without eligibility for parole until he had served twelve years.

Appeals were filled for both Craig and Jamie, and in 1983 they were both rejected. But for all intents and purposes, the trial of the Munro brothers was over on Saturday, February 8, 1981, when their guilt was there for a whole city – and a whole country – to see. That was the day Dave and I escorted the Munro brothers out of the courtroom and on to jail. It was the finale to a long, arduous, difficult and traumatic case. It was gratifying to me and to Dave and to Eddy Adamson and to all of us who had worked so hard on this case.

But if it was a victory, it wasn’t a pleasant one. To this day I believe justice would have been better served if we’d had capital punishment. Craig Munro, if not his brother as well, deserved it.“

From “Duty.” Chapter 12. Two Little Girls and A Trail of Broken Hearts. Page 192:

“I have always been very protective of children, both on the home front and in the public domain, but knowing what I know and realizing that children can be preyed upon has made me an extremely protective grandfather. Child murders and the vicious abuse of children have much deeper meaning to me than the evening news because I have seen the handiwork of these animals up close which is why I believe some cases cry out for capital punishment. It wouldn’t bother me to pull the switch, open the trap door, or give the lethal injection to such killers of children. Predators must know there will be certain and severe consequences for their actions.“

The crime policy that Stephen Harper and Julian Fantino advocate is based on “gut feelings,” not facts. The truth is that the death penalty is not a deterrent for any form of crime. Canada’s penal system still makes mistakes which is one of the many many valid arguments against capital punishment. The last execution in Canada was on December 11, 1962, at Toronto’s Don Jail. It was a Liberal Prime Minister, Lester B. Pearson, who abolished capital punishment. For Fantino and Harper, crime legislation is at the top of the agenda, even though crime has been declining in Canada for over a decade (another example of the aforementioned pair ignoring the facts). Stephen Harper has said that he wants Fantino to be his point person on crime. Was the reinstatement of capital punishment the kind of thing that Tom Flanagan meant when he called Stephen Harper an “incrementalist”?