THREE STRIKES AND YOU'RE IN JAIL FOR LIFE

Conservative Proposal May Sound Appealing But It Doesn't Address
Canada's Most Common Crimes

The federal government is moving to please Canadians who think our
judges coddle career criminals with the introduction this week of a
package of tough law-and-order bills.

Already among the most controversial is the planned move to introduce
a three-strikes-and-you're-in-for-life law to deal with sexual and/or
violent recidivists.

Justice Minister Vic Toews has been at pains to distance his
proposals from the 12-year-old California law that is the grandfather
of such legislation, mention of which usually incites Liberals to
begin blubbering about some pizza thief who got life in jail.

What Toews is apparently going to propose is that anyone convicted
three times of a serious sexual or violent offence will automatically
be considered a dangerous offender and accordingly incarcerated.

That policy was part of the Conservatives' election platform and
shouldn't surprise.

But I am surprised Toews is anxious about his new law being compared
with California's.

I think there are problems with the approach the Tories are
considering, but the U.S. law is a red herring.

For one thing, it has a lot of supporters and doesn't stink nearly as
badly as its opponents aver.

State voters, for instance, not only initiated the law in 1994, but
also reaffirmed it a decade later.

You can find a ton of information in academic journals and the
popular media about the California legislation, other states that
used it as a model for their own version and the efficacy of this
crime-fighting tactic. There's even a website, www.threestrikes.org.

David Paulson, the immediate past-president of the California
District Attorneys Association, recently provided what I thought was
a good synopsis of what he attributes to the law's usefulness.

"Over the past 11 years, crime in California has dropped at a rate of
nearly double the national average," he wrote.

"There is no explanation for such a significant decline other than
the three-strikes law."

The legislation is not arbitrary, he maintains, and grants wide
discretion to local district attorneys.

After a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1996 on the application of the
law, Paulson believes, "local and appellate courts have also
exercised their discretion in determining which defendants are the
'worst of the worst.' "

"Currently, there are 7,813 career criminals spending at least 25
years in prison under three strikes," he said.

"These habitual offenders are in jail where they belong, not in our
neighbourhoods committing more crimes and creating more victims . . .
Three strikes has slammed shut what was once a revolving door for
career criminals."

Those are good points.

And prosecutor Paulson points out that, in spite of broadsides that
his colleagues and the state's elected judges abuse their discretion,
not one case of corrupt process has been cited.

"There is no 'pizza thief' who was sentenced to life in prison under
three strikes," he insisted. "And the current offence for the vast
majority of three strikes inmates is a serious or violent felony, not
a petty crime. During 2003-04, only eight defendants in the entire
state were convicted under three strikes with a current petty theft
offence and only 17 were convicted for simple drug possession.

"Moreover, in all of these cases each of the defendants had a long
history of prior serious and/or violent convictions which warranted a
three strikes punishment.

"Why should the public have to wait until there is another victim
before locking these career criminals up for life?"

I think you will hear exactly the same arguments being trotted out by
Toews this week. And why not? They are persuasive.

Still, I don't think they are germane to the real criminal issues
facing ordinary Canadians.

We've got laws on the books right now to deal with the most evil
among us -- their successful application, however, does require some
legal elbow grease.

Prosecutors in Canada can apply to the court to have those who are
violent and repeat offenders declared "dangerous" and have them
imprisoned indefinitely. There are a few hundred such people out of
roughly 12,000 federal inmates so designated, including Terry Driver,
the so-called Abbotsford Killer.

Each year there only are about two dozen "dangerous offender"
hearings across this country.

The Tories are simply making this process a whole lot easier for prosecutors.

Lowering the bar or reversing the onus in such cases, however, is not
going to make you or me all that much safer.

Repeat violent or sexual offenders who are able to remain at large,
preying on others, are anomalies and do not pose as great a threat as
Toews would have us believe.

We're far more likely to be murdered, raped or assaulted by a pal or
a relative.

These laws make good cocktail-party fodder, but they don't address
the more significant, the more widespread, and the far more worrying
property and drug crime that plagues us.