(This
column was published in the North
Shore News on
Feb. 25, 1998)
Courts
can't deal with real criminals
By Leo Knight
ON
a hot summer night last year, a group of teenagers gathered for
a night of partying in an isolated area of South Surrey called
Stokes Pit.
One
of the group refused the advice of his peers and got into his
car, an older model Cadillac, and attempted to drive away. He
was too drunk to walk, let alone drive, and some of the group
tried to physically stop him.
He
hit the gas pedal hard and spun the wheel to move the car away
from those striving to stop him from doing something he'd
regret.
They
failed.
He
drove off in a cloud of dust slamming into bodies and vehicles,
forever altering dozens of lives.
The
final body count was two dead and numerous injured, some
permanently.
Last
week, the driver of the ill-fated vehicle, a young offender who
consequently cannot be named, appeared in Surrey Family Court
before Judge Ed Scarlett.
He
was sentenced to three years probation and three months in open
custody.
He
was also instructed to write letters of apology to the families
of the victims.
On
the surface of it, this would seem to be a very light sentence
considering the damage, personal and physical, left in the wake
of the incident.
But
Judge Scarlett was very careful in saying he didn't want to make
another victim of Stokes Pit.
The
sentencing sparked controversy in the community.
Surrey's
Mayor Doug MacCallum spoke out saying the sentence did nothing
to deter anyone from a similar future act.
Good
point.
But
this boy has never been in trouble before. His life is in
tatters, as is that of his family who are feeling every bit as
guilty as their son.
Scarlett
argued that placing the boy among murderers, rapists and thieves
in jail would do nothing to change what has already occurred and
would only serve to further destroy any chance the boy has of a
semi-normal life.
A
valid argument in this case, I believe.
A
senior police officer in Langley who was close to the
investigation said to me, "How do you say you're sorry for
that? He'll have to live with an incredible guilt for the rest
of his life. I don't think I could do that."
This
case illustrates the fine line judges often have to tread when
looking at sentencing in cases before them.
In
this case, I believe Judge Scarlett addressed the matter
appropriately, given the circumstances and the history of the
boy in the dock.
On
the same day, in North Vancouver, the RCMP dealt with a case
that started as a shoplifting at Lynn Valley mall.
By
the time the matter had come to its conclusion, the Mounties had
three people in custody. They recovered over $200 worth of
Safeway property. The car the men were driving had been stolen
earlier from a hotel in Burnaby.
None
of this was surprising to the police. What was surprising was
the sheer number of criminal convictions on their respective
pedigrees.
Between
them, they had 111 convictions for everything from theft to
robbery with violence.
All
were on probation at the time of the offences. All had
outstanding charges for which they were on bail when arrested by
the RCMP.
One
even had the laughable condition not to go anywhere on the North
Shore.
Here
are three individuals who have done nothing in their pathetic
lives to suggest they care about living by the rules in our
society.
Their
criminal history reads like a listing of offences in the
criminal code. Theft, theft of auto, B&E, possession of
stolen property, robbery, assault causing bodily harm,
trafficking, escape lawful custody, breach of probation, failure
to appear, and on it goes.
Can
anyone explain to me why they are not locked up for life?
They
have demonstrated time, and time and time again they simply do
not care about any restrictions placed upon them by the courts.
Probation?
It's
a joke to them. Nothing ever happens to them if they breach the
conditions imposed.
In
Surrey, a young man was drunk and his lack of thinking has
placed him in a prison few of us could endure. Basically a good
kid by all accounts, except for this one time he faltered.
The
guilt over what he has done on one stupid, drunken night will
haunt him forever. Calls were made for his head. Public
admonishment of a judge who had a very difficult decision to
make were extolled in the media.
In
North Vancouver, three pieces of human excrement continued their
life of crime unconcerned about anything the justice system has
exposed them to. Yet, their case passes before the bar of
justice with nary a peep.
There
is a need for judges to show compassion and understanding of the
occasional human frailty. There is also a time for them to look
seriously at a wasted life and come to grips with the fact that
some people are simply beyond redemption.
It is the latter that judges and the justice system seem incapable of dealing with.