CHRONIC ADDICTION-BASED OFFENDERS MUST FIRST BE SEPARATED FROM SOCIETY

It's hard to say 30 strikes and you're out with a straight face. It
sounds like a silly joke.

But the astounding truth is that the Vancouver Police Department
tracks 379 offenders who have an average of 39 convictions each,
primarily for theft and other property crime. Six have more than 100
convictions. These are convictions, not charges or run-ins with the police.

Each of those convictions represents a crime and a victim, police and
court costs; each incrementally adds to the erosion of our ability to
feel safe and secure in our own community.

Each also illustrates what police complain is a catch-and-release
court system that provides no deterrence to chronic offenders and
little protection to the public.

In a report released this week calling for tougher sentencing, the
VPD painted a picture of a typical chronic offender as a crack
cocaine addict on a perpetual mission to feed his addiction.

To succeed, he commits a dozen or more break-ins and thefts every
day. Occasionally he is arrested.

When he gets hauled into court, the fact that he has been there
dozens of times before doesn't seem to matter. In fact, the police
analysis shows that after an offender has been convicted of 30 or
more crimes, the average sentence declines to an average of 25 days.

These statistics represent a justice system that is failing on
several levels. The sentences represent neither a deterrent to
chronic offenders nor an opportunity for rehabilitation.

Most importantly, they fail to protect the public from a clear danger.

Vancouver courts apparently mete out sentences that are on average
only a third as long as those imposed by other B.C. cities for
similar offenders and less than half the length of the national
average outside B.C.

But when the motivation to offend is feeding a drug addiction, it's
unlikely that doubling an average sentence of 25 days will act as a deterrent.

What's needed is a recognition in law of persistent offenders that
will allow judges to sentence them to significantly longer prison terms.

The initial benefit is that for as long as they are incarcerated, the
public will be protected from the hundreds of crimes they would have
been committing.

For longer sentences to be justified for what on their own are
relatively minor crimes, however, they have to be accompanied with
genuine opportunities for rehabilitation. That means increasing
access to addiction services and treatment for mental illness.

Where chronic offenders respond positively to such treatment, they
should earn the right to early release. We recognize that such
treatment often fails. In that case, longer sentences will at least
keep chronic offenders separated from potential victims.

Jail is not a perfect solution, but after a dozen or more
convictions, perfection is less important than protection.