SECURITY: GOING, GOING...

This week and last, the Winnipeg Sun has been abuzz with a story
about a local car thief who was beaten by the driver of another car
with which he collided. The thief was clobbered with a baseball bat,
resulting in serious head injuries. The assailant did not know the
car thief, nor did he know the thief had been involved in another
hit-and-run accident only minutes before, or that he was a serial car
thief, a drug dealer and a gang member.

Many who read of the beating applauded the actions of the assailant,
feeling the car thief got what he deserved. Others condemned what
they saw as approval of vigilante justice and disregard for the
rights of a fellow human being, albeit a criminal.

Most of those who found satisfaction in the beating are not
sanctioning vigilante justice, nor do they condone the beating of
other human beings. But they are understandably pleased that someone
finally punished a drug-dealing, car-thieving gang member, a duty the
courts seem unwilling or unable to fulfill.

In a civilized society, the initiation of force must not be
tolerated, but proportionate violence in self-defence is permissible.
In order to achieve uniformity in dealing with those who violate the
rights of others (and, as much as possible, to avoid mistakes),
citizens have delegated the legal use of force to the state. In
return, the state must vigorously defend the rights of its citizens.

Currently, many people do not see the state adequately defending
their rights. Convicted criminals are not receiving appropriate
punishment for their crimes, and deterrence is failing as a result.
Gradually, insidiously, our sense of security in our own communities
is slipping away. Is it a coincidence that as we have retreated from
the deterrent aspect of the law and concentrated on the so-called
root causes of crime, as we've focused on "understanding" instead of
punishment, that crime has soared and security has diminished?

The mother of the battered car thief, in a letter to the Sun,
suggested her son should get credit that he's only a car thief, and
not a rapist or a child molester. Her mistake is confusing a positive
value with the absence of a negative. People deserve credit for the
good things they do, not for the evil things they don't do.

But haven't we, as a society, been conditioned to think like this
mother? When we shop in Winnipeg, aren't we glad to find our car
hasn't been stolen? When we return home, aren't we glad to find our
home wasn't broken into? When our kids are in bed each night, aren't
we glad they made it through another day without some creep doing
something terrible to them?

Our sense of security has diminished to the point where we ascribe
positive value when bad things don't happen to us. It's a sad state
of affairs, and one that we have slipped into almost imperceptibly.
But the decades-long trend is obvious to all except those who refuse
to see, such as the Liberals and NDP, who recently gutted the
Conservatives' attempts to toughen Canada's criminal law.

With all the advances in reason and technology, tolerance and
understanding, brotherhood and human rights, why is our sense of
personal security going in the opposite direction? When will the
focus return to protecting those who obey the law, rather than those
who break it? How unsafe must we feel before we fully support
politicians who will take forceful action to turn the tide?