(This
column was published in the North
Shore News on
Oct. 8, 2003)
Sentences aren't protecting the public
By Leo Knight
In the past couple of weeks, I have been discussing the case of two North Vancouver brothers who simply will not stop their criminal activities despite numerous trips through the revolving doors of our justice system.
The system is plagued with those who refuse to accept that some people will not be rehabilitated and that some people are simply beyond help or beyond hope.
The brothers I have been speaking of are two such creatures: those beyond help or hope. While one brother was in jail awaiting a bail hearing when more break-ins were occurring, I told you the older brother had one warrant outstanding and more on the way.
In the interim, he has now been arrested and is also in custody awaiting a bail hear ing - a process before a provincial court judge to determine whether he should be released while awaiting trial. He got bagged by Vancouver police yet again breaching court-imposed conditions.
Again, this is not isolated to these two individuals. Let's look at some of the events of the past weekend for two more examples.
In Surrey Sunday night, a Mountie fired shots at a man in a stolen car who was attempting to run down police officers trying to corral him. He was on probation for stealing cars at the time. By the time the incident was over, the man was in serious condition in Royal Columbian Hospital.
On the same night in Vancouver, Vancouver police officers fired shots at two men in a stolen car who were trying to run over officers attempting to arrest them. Both were known to police. One was captured hiding under a vehicle. He refused to come out and police had to shoot him with a bean bag round to get control and effect the arrest. If it sounds, from reading this, that the court system isn't being effective as a means of curbing the behaviour of the criminal class, it's because it isn't.
How does it happen that when someone is on probation and commits another crime and, at the same time, breaches the conditions of the probation order, that little or nothing is the result of that action?
And when it happens again and again, in case after case, surely there comes a point when we can agree the system simply isn't working.
Occasionally there is a ray of hope though. Last week in Ottawa, an Ontario Supreme Court judge, Justice Michel Charbonneau, sentenced serial sex offender Richard Chatelin to a life sentence with no possibility of parole for 20 years following his conviction for second degree murder for the sex-killing of a prostitute. Chatelin has a long history of sex assaults and all the court orders, probation periods, parole conditions and rehabilitative counselling thrown at him by the system have had no effect whatsoever. Charbonneau recognized that and did the right thing.
Said the judge in sentencing, "Substantial attempts at rehabilitation have been made, and they have failed. His record shows repetitive sexually deviant conduct. Mr. Chatelain is, and will remain, a highly dangerous sexual offender."
Chatelin was convicted of the sex killing of Stacy Heil. He was also given a concurrent sentence for a similar, but not fatal attack on an 18-year-old-prostitute. Crown prosecutor Ronald LaLiberte said at the sentencing hearing, "That woman was victim number 6. Ms. Heil was victim number 7. One of our purposes today is to ensure there is no victim number 8."
And that is exactly the point. Sentencing in criminal cases is, at least as a part of the process, designed to protect the public - to ensure a criminal on a spree does not turn more people into victims. Unfortunately, this seems to be the least of the things considered when addressing habitual offenders. In my view, it should be the first.
Both of the brothers I have been discussing are habitual offenders who contribute nothing to society. The system has given them chance after chance. Neither has seen fit to take advantage. Their own family members are frustrated by the ineffectiveness of the courts system to deal with their transgressions.
There comes a time when, as noted by Justice Charbonneau, the offender must be identified as "beyond help." When that time is reached, the system must err on the side of caution and do its duty to protect the public. The law says that is what should happen. It is only in practice that it does not. Both brothers are to appear this week in North Vancouver court for bail hearings to determine eligibility for bail. A good first step would be to hold them in custody pending trial.
At least North Shore residents would get a respite, temporarily, before the system releases them with more ridiculous conditions which they will ignore and continue their criminal ways.
-30-