DONE FAIRLY, THREE-STRIKES LAW COULD ENHANCE PUBLIC SAFETY

The federal Conservatives' proposed new bill, which would create a
home-grown version of the U.S. three-strikes law, can be successful
if attention is paid to the details.

The U.S. law, frankly, has become a fiasco because of the implacable
rigidity with which it has been applied. Stories of third-time
offenders being sent to jail for life for stealing a pizza are too plentiful.

Yet, a three-strikes law can be successful if it focuses not on the
magic number of three, but on the particulars of the crime. Done
properly, this type of law can make Canada's legislation a model for
other countries to follow.

Clearly, if an individual commits two assaults and then his third
crime is a break-and-enter, that should never be grounds to pack him
off indefinitely to prison.

However, a three-strikes law would resolve the dilemma of what to do
about offenders such as pedophiles who, under the current system,
must be released into the community at the end of their sentences,
yet have a strong likelihood of recidivism.

A three-strikes law would assist public safety because for perpetual
criminals parole would not be a consideration. The National Parole
Board has made serious misjudgments over the years when assessing
some offenders' candidacy for parole -- misjudgments for which
innocent citizens have paid the price. As a 1994 report by the
federal auditor general pointed out: "Board members have only a short
time to read and digest large amounts of information on the offender,
some of which may be incomplete or even contradictory."

But a three-strikes law must be used judiciously. The goal is to
target those who commit the most heinous offences and who are judged
unredeemable. That is why Justice Minister Vic Toews needs to do more
than promise that the law won't be abused, as it has been in the U.S.
He needs to reveal the details and to tell the public how it will
work and who it will target.

Nobody would dispute that a Paul Bernardo or a Clifford Olson
deserves to remain behind bars permanently, but the gamut of violent
offences and the circumstances in which each one occurs are not so
black and white.

There are 336 criminals on the dangerous offender roster. Critics of
the proposed bill fear those numbers will swell when national
legislation is in place, rather than leaving judges to decide on a
case-by-case basis. However, if there are people who are free now
whose records warrant labelling them dangerous offenders, public
safety is the first priority.

Toews has the opportunity to do this right, and he should tell us how
that will happen.