LONGER SENTENCES FOR CHRONIC CROOKS

Call him Ed. He's 42 and a crack cocaine addict, with little interest
in trying rehab again. He uses about three-quarters of an ounce a day
- -- about $675 worth. He steals to get the money, with break-ins into
businesses and stores his main focus. It takes a lot of break-ins to
net that much money each day.

He's not great at crime. Ed is caught regularly, in part because he's
one of the targets of a Vancouver police program focusing on hardcore
property crime offenders. He's been charged 112 times in the last
seven years. In 2006, he spent about nine months of the year in jail.

Ed is profiled in a report from the Vancouver Police Department on
chronic offenders. He's an extreme example -- Super Chronic 1, the
report calls him -- but there are 26 others in the "super chronic"
category. Police monitor another 351 chronic property crime offenders.

The situation isn't as dramatic in Victoria, where police have
applied for funding to do a similar study of the problem. But here
too police say a small number of drug-using offenders commit a
disproportionate share of crimes like break and enters, bicycle
thefts and thefts from vehicles.

Dealing with these offenders is a critical challenge for police and
courts, one that so far they have not been able to manage.

The Vancouver police report proposes longer sentences for repeat
offenders as a solution. This would theoretically allow treatment,
for both addiction and for the 25 per cent of the chronic offenders
identified with mental illness.

Really, the goal is just to get them off the streets for longer
periods so they won't commit crimes.

It's a tricky area. We don't, except in extreme cases where dangerous
offender status is sought, imprison people for what they might do.

And the courts -- following Parliament's instructions -- impose
sentences based in part on the seriousness of the crime. Break-ins
are less serious than robberies, for example, and bring less time in custody.

The police report complains that sentences don't increase as the
number of convictions mount; in some cases, sentences actually appear to drop.

But it also indicates sentences are not short for this group now. The
average period in custody on a break and enter offence, for example,
is eight months. That's significant. (The report can be read at
http://vancouver.ca/police/media/chronics.htm.)

Still, we wouldn't dismiss the call for longer sentences for hardcore
chronic offenders.

Our laws and sentencing standards evolved before the popularity of
drugs like crack, which are driving a crime epidemic. The cost is
enormous. ICBC estimates the average cost of a theft from a car at
$750, considering the broken window or damaged lock and lost
property. A single offender can easily cost the community $50,000 a
month while he's on the street.

And the cumulative effect is terribly damaging. The fear of being
victimized undermines our basic sense of security and limits our freedom.

There are many potential solutions. For some users, it simply makes
sense to prescribe and provide their drugs, especially ones, like
heroin, with few harmful health side effects. Treatment -- as the
Vancouver police report notes -- needs more resources. Community
courts offer a way to divert some offenders into treatment and
programs to manage their addictions.

And prevention -- targeting those most at risk -- needs much greater emphasis.

The courts could also reconsider the current practice of giving
offenders double credit for time spent in custody awaiting trial --
spending 20 days in pretrial custody reduces the jail time by 40
days. The theory is that pretrial custody is particularly hard time,
but the result is an erosion of real time served.

And perhaps it is also time for sentencing standards that reflect the
impact of a relatively small number of chronic offenders on the
community. Longer sentences won't deter offenders or, realistically,
encourage a change in their behaviour.

They will improve community security. And that is becoming a critical issuee