Ford’s crime policies rely on vibes, not evidence

This summer, Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford proudly announced he’s spending $134 million to buy five new police helicopters. When I think about fighting crime, the first thing that comes to mind is definitely “more helicopters.” Because what’s been holding us back in tackling crime is not a lack of social services, effective rehabilitation, or maybe fixing the housing crisis – no, it’s the fact that criminals have simply been out-choppering the police.

During the press conference, Ford casually mentioned that he ordered his attorney general, Doug Downey, to start collecting crime statistics. Why? Ford wants to know just how many repeat offenders are getting out on bail.

And look, on paper, this is a good thing! Yes, Doug, collect data! Absolutely, we should be collecting all kinds of data about the justice system because – spoiler alert – we already know many things that aren’t great. Like the fact that more people than ever are being denied bail and shoved into pre-trial custody conditions that, frankly, sound like they were designed by someone who hates both humans and basic decency.

More data is always better because – brace yourself – making decisions based on reality is usually better than doing it based on vibes and poorly remembered anecdotes.

Ford, who runs on vibes, somehow manages to pull off one of the most staggering contradictions you’ll hear all year: he insists that too many violent repeat offenders are being released “not once, not twice, but THREE, FOUR, FIVE times,” but in the same breath, says we don’t have any solid evidence on how the bail system works.

Let me get this straight: Doug Ford is upset about repeat offenders being let out on bail…based on stories he’s “heard on the streets.” Ah yes, the streets – the ultimate source of reliable, peer-reviewed, empirical evidence. Forget years of criminology research or legal analysis; we need a premier who forms his policies based on what Chad at the gas station told him.

But again, data is a good thing. Yet Ford doesn’t seem particularly curious about the rest of the data that might be useful. For example, how many people are denied bail and then found innocent? Or how many people plead guilty only because they’re stuck in pre-trial custody? Or how many people are unrepresented because the Ford government gutted Ontario’s legal aid system. Or how many people successfully follow bail conditions?

Evidence-based policy decisions are sound. But with the Ford government, we risk policy-based evidence-gathering – a recipe for disaster.

And then, just when you think we’ve reached peak Ford, he announces, with a straight face, that he will hold judges accountable for their bail decisions. Ford’s plan? He wants to “measure” judges and then “hold them accountable” for decisions he doesn’t like.

Doug Ford is now the ultimate arbiter of legal fairness.

This. Is. Not. Normal.

Politicians holding judges accountable for their decisions? That’s not how this is supposed to work. This is how authoritarian regimes work.

We have this thing called judicial independence, where judges are free to make decisions based on the law, not based on what the Premier of Ontario wants – or what he heard from Carl down at Tim Hortons. Once you start politicizing bail decisions, you open the door to politicians interfering with charging, trial processes, sentencing, and other aspects of the justice system.

And the thing is, Ford hasn’t just dipped his toe into the swampy waters of judicial interference – he’s cannonballed into it. He politicized the judicial appointment committee by saying, “I’m not going to appoint some NDP or some Liberal,” and then appointed his former staffers to the judicial selection committee. And he tripled down on his call to appoint “tough-on-crime” judges. And Ford publicly condemned Umar Zameer’s bail as “completely unacceptable” without knowing a single fact about the case. This was before Zameer was wholly exonerated. But hey, why let something as trivial as facts get in the way of scoring political points right?

Ford’s vague threat of judicial “accountability,” surprise, comes with absolutely no details. How exactly does one hold judges accountable, Doug? Removal from the bench every time you disagree with a decision? Or fines for judges who release someone on bail who commits another crime? Or will Ford just dox judges when he’s had a bad day and wants to rile up his base? Because none of this sounds even remotely legal – or sane.

Here's the thing: judges can be held accountable. But – and this is a big “but” – they must be held responsible while maintaining judicial independence, which is crucial if you want a functioning democracy. If a judge messes up? There’s an appeal process. Ford employs legions of very well-paid lawyers whose entire job is to appeal judicial errors. If a judge screws up? Provincial or federal judicial councils can discipline them. But here's the difference: those processes are based on facts and law, not a Doug Ford vibe check.

Doug Ford is the only person who needs to be held accountable here. This isn’t just some petty overreach – it’s a direct threat to one of the most fundamental principles of democracy. Politicians should not be able to undermine judicial independence because it makes for a good soundbite on the six o’clock news.

But here’s the good news: we still have a way to hold Doug Ford accountable for this nonsense. And it’s a way that doesn’t involve him stacking the deck or inventing more helicopter policies. It’s called an election. So, mark your calendars – June 4, 2026 – the day we get to say to Ford, “We’ve heard your ‘evidence’ and, honestly, we’re not buying it.”