Pubdate: Wed, 18 Oct 2006
Source: Calgary Herald (CN AB)
Copyright: 2006 Calgary Herald
Contact:  http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/66
Author: Don Martin, Calgary Herald

THREE-STRIKE BILL ISN'T DANGEROUS -- BAD GUYS ARE

Prison construction companies would seem like a secure investment as 
the law-and-order Conservatives pitched a plan Monday to strike out 
convicts after a threepeat of serious offences.

Upon a third conviction, unless the accused had a damn good excuse 
for committing three rapes or attempted murders, a judge would have 
to impose a dangerous offender designation along with a seven-year 
minimum sleepover in the slammer.

Thus, many more prisons. So one need only throw a cash bundle at the 
nearest McPrison Construction Ltd. as it prepared to bid on a 
Canadian correctional services building boom and wait for the 
proceeds of serious crime to roll in. But first, given my troubled 
buy-high, sell-low history of stock market activity, a bit of 
research was in order. And, lo and behold, there was Minister of 
Justice Vic Toews doing a television interview in the office next to 
my tiny cubicle with his flack standing outside.

So, I asked him, how many hundreds of chronically dangerous offenders 
would this new bill put behind bars and how many expensive new 
Supermax prisons might be needed to accommodate the population surge?

The flack punched a few buttons on his BlackBerry. "Um, there were 25 
designated last year, half that number this year," he said. So the 
new law's gonna add a couple zeroes to that number of chronic 
evil-doers in jail, right? "After this legislation passes, it might 
reach 50," he predicted.

Fifty more dangerous dudes? Total?? Gosh. Scratch the inmate 
population explosion. Cancel the share buy.

The new federal legislation released Monday is hardly as dangerous as 
it seems to the hysterical bleeding hearts who view the worst inmates 
as victims of hard justice.

For starters, only the dirtiest dozen of serious crimes trigger the 
reverse onus, which means the convicted inmate has to successfully 
argue they are NOT a dangerous offender after a professional 
assessment suggests the label should stick.

And those crimes have to be linked to a series of nasty add-on 
activities to qualify for the strikeout call. So an incest conviction 
might get the Crown's attention, but it has to be committed during a 
kidnapping or torture or any of a few dozen other ugly conditions 
before the offender qualifies as a crime worthy of the dangerous designation.

A check with The Centre for Justice Statistics, a wonderful resource 
that puts numbers to everything in the judicial system, couldn't 
produce a count of three-time major crime offenders, which suggests 
this isn't an epidemic.

But wait, others say, what about California where they pioneered the 
strikeout as harsh law and order in 1994? Trouble is, the golden 
state's net casts so wide that a bar-room brawler would qualify for a 
life behind bars after three fights. This has struck out some 43,000 
inmates but, because most of them would live behind bars in any 
event, the expected $20-billion, 20-year prison construction program 
is barely half that amount.

Others argue this is cruel and unconstitutional punishment triggering 
incarceration overkill.

It's doubtful. The Crown must first produce a professional assessment 
on the hopelessness of the inmate to be rehabilitated. Even if he or 
she is deemed a lost and dangerous cause by the experts, the 
presiding judge still has the discretion to apply the label or opt to 
impose a less aggravating sentence.

But it won't be a deterrent, others argue. Given that the average 
Canadian inmate is in their mid-30s with two hard time sentences to 
their name and a third on the way, might I suggest jail won't be a 
deterrent from a fourth crime? About the only moment's hesitation 
they'll have before reoffending might be the prospect of not being 
able to escape a seven-year sentence.

Let's face it. After three times of being proven guilty on violent 
crimes, these cons are inherently dangerous and it should fall on 
their shoulders to plead their case for leniency.

Of course, there's considerable doubt any of the three opposition 
parties will support the government, which would doom the bill to 
failure or a delay until after the next election.

That's a pity. This tough-love government has introduced welcome 
rules for a whole new ball game. Until now, three strikes usually 
meant a walk. But this bill will banish the most dangerous players to 
the dugout for a long, long time.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Elaine