BROKEN JUSTICE SCALES IN KITCHENER COURTHOUSE

The scales of justice are a truly delicate mechanism, but in Kitchener
this week they bounced completely out of whack.

On Tuesday, a pregnant teenager with no criminal record was sentenced
to nine months in jail for selling crack cocaine and marijuana. The
very next day, a 22-year-old man with a history of trouble with the
law was sent to his uncle's home, of all places, for two years of
house arrest after being convicted of two counts of possession of
crystal methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana.

There is a gaping disparity in these two sentences that will strike
and dismay many fair-minded observers.

Jennifer Davidson is a drug dealer. Santo Leo is a drug
dealer.

She was convicted of selling $2,000 worth of cocaine. He was caught
with $28,000 worth of drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

She sold a relatively small amount of cocaine. He was caught with a
larger quantity of drugs, different kinds of drugs and one drug --
crystal meth -- which police are particularly intent on keeping out of
this community because it is so destructive.

She is pregnant. He came from a background that included abuse by
family members and living in foster and group homes. But she goes to
jail. And he goes home, which he is free to leave for work, school,
health care or five hours a day on weekends. What gives?

To be sure, sentencing is not a one-size-fits-all process. The law
expressly says sentencing judges should weigh several different and
often contradictory factors. Different people, based on personal
circumstances and the degree of remorse shown will -- and should --
receive different punishments for similar crimes.

But if the gap is too wide between what are ostensibly similar
circumstances, the system can appear to be unfair, if not in error.
That's what happened this week in Kitchener.

The difference in sentencing in these two cases can partly be
explained in the different judges involved. Justice John Lynch said,
"we have to realize drug use in our community is a serious matter"
before jailing Davidson. In contrast, Justice Colin Westman concluded
society must shoulder blame for Leo's crimes because it put him in a
foster care system that provided no guidance.

Two judges. Two very different standards. Apparently, the fact that
Davidson was pregnant and jail is a bad place for pregnant women did
not persuade Justice Lynch to go easy on her. He concluded that her
personal problems neither absolved her of responsibility nor
outweighed the need to protect the public. For his part, Justice
Westman cited the mess of Leo's personal life, and the failure of
society to clean it up, as reason to keep him out of jail.

Let's all agree that there should be discretion based on the
individual. But there also needs to be consistency so people can have
faith in the system. In these two cases, in the space of two days, in
the same Kitchener courthouse, that consistency was lacking and the
public faith in the system was called into question.

Maybe a sentence of nine months in jail is reasonable in light of what
Davidson did. But if this is so, house arrest for Leo let him off far
too easily. Justice Westman was right when he wondered if his sentence
was too lenient. The Crown should consider appealing it.