THREE-STRIKE BILL ISN'T DANGEROUS -- BAD GUYS ARE

Prison construction companies would seem like a secure investment as
the law-and-order Conservatives pitched a plan Monday to strike out
convicts after a threepeat of serious offences.

Upon a third conviction, unless the accused had a damn good excuse
for committing three rapes or attempted murders, a judge would have
to impose a dangerous offender designation along with a seven-year
minimum sleepover in the slammer.

Thus, many more prisons. So one need only throw a cash bundle at the
nearest McPrison Construction Ltd. as it prepared to bid on a
Canadian correctional services building boom and wait for the
proceeds of serious crime to roll in. But first, given my troubled
buy-high, sell-low history of stock market activity, a bit of
research was in order. And, lo and behold, there was Minister of
Justice Vic Toews doing a television interview in the office next to
my tiny cubicle with his flack standing outside.

So, I asked him, how many hundreds of chronically dangerous offenders
would this new bill put behind bars and how many expensive new
Supermax prisons might be needed to accommodate the population surge?

The flack punched a few buttons on his BlackBerry. "Um, there were 25
designated last year, half that number this year," he said. So the
new law's gonna add a couple zeroes to that number of chronic
evil-doers in jail, right? "After this legislation passes, it might
reach 50," he predicted.

Fifty more dangerous dudes? Total?? Gosh. Scratch the inmate
population explosion. Cancel the share buy.

The new federal legislation released Monday is hardly as dangerous as
it seems to the hysterical bleeding hearts who view the worst inmates
as victims of hard justice.

For starters, only the dirtiest dozen of serious crimes trigger the
reverse onus, which means the convicted inmate has to successfully
argue they are NOT a dangerous offender after a professional
assessment suggests the label should stick.

And those crimes have to be linked to a series of nasty add-on
activities to qualify for the strikeout call. So an incest conviction
might get the Crown's attention, but it has to be committed during a
kidnapping or torture or any of a few dozen other ugly conditions
before the offender qualifies as a crime worthy of the dangerous designation.

A check with The Centre for Justice Statistics, a wonderful resource
that puts numbers to everything in the judicial system, couldn't
produce a count of three-time major crime offenders, which suggests
this isn't an epidemic.

But wait, others say, what about California where they pioneered the
strikeout as harsh law and order in 1994? Trouble is, the golden
state's net casts so wide that a bar-room brawler would qualify for a
life behind bars after three fights. This has struck out some 43,000
inmates but, because most of them would live behind bars in any
event, the expected $20-billion, 20-year prison construction program
is barely half that amount.

Others argue this is cruel and unconstitutional punishment triggering
incarceration overkill.

It's doubtful. The Crown must first produce a professional assessment
on the hopelessness of the inmate to be rehabilitated. Even if he or
she is deemed a lost and dangerous cause by the experts, the
presiding judge still has the discretion to apply the label or opt to
impose a less aggravating sentence.

But it won't be a deterrent, others argue. Given that the average
Canadian inmate is in their mid-30s with two hard time sentences to
their name and a third on the way, might I suggest jail won't be a
deterrent from a fourth crime? About the only moment's hesitation
they'll have before reoffending might be the prospect of not being
able to escape a seven-year sentence.

Let's face it. After three times of being proven guilty on violent
crimes, these cons are inherently dangerous and it should fall on
their shoulders to plead their case for leniency.

Of course, there's considerable doubt any of the three opposition
parties will support the government, which would doom the bill to
failure or a delay until after the next election.

That's a pity. This tough-love government has introduced welcome
rules for a whole new ball game. Until now, three strikes usually
meant a walk. But this bill will banish the most dangerous players to
the dugout for a long, long time.