THESE OFFICERS ARE UNLIKELY TO REOFFEND

Last January, Vancouver policemen took three suspected drug dealers for a
"ride" to Third Beach in Stanley Park. Once there, the officers apparently
"released a few of their frustrations" by assaulting the trio. It's eerily
similar to a cop action flick but, unlike Hollywood's stories, this resulted
in real and lasting consequences for the police involved.

Although they were sentenced this week, there won't be a swift end to the
repercussions.

Six officers received variable punishments which supposedly reflected the
degree of their involvement. The sentences ranged from 60 days' house arrest
and six months' probation for the officer held most responsible, to an
absolute discharge for the officer who watched but didn't participate in the
assaults.

The courts have spoken, but has justice been served?

Many feel that such a blatant dereliction of duty deserves jail time, and
the Crown prosecutor is considering an appeal.

The renegade officers face an internal disciplinary hearing later this month
to determine their future as police officers. And, while many feel that
those who now have a criminal record should be denied employment, a
spokesman for the Vancouver Police Union attributes their actions to a
"mistake" and suggests that they be allowed to keep their jobs.

One could argue there were mitigating factors in this particular
circumstance. After all, the three victims were all known to the police and
had lengthy criminal records.

One could also justify the violence on a sense of utter frustration at
arresting these same men one more time. The justice system functions as
little more than a revolving door for those convicted of drug-related
crimes. Any means of deterrence is either absent or deemed by the courts to
be not worthy of imposing on supposed "victims" of drug abuse.

All of this places a higher burden on the officers who are charged with
keeping order on the streets. In addition, the men didn't suffer serious
injuries, although it has been suggested that the agreed-upon statement of
facts used for sentencing failed to fully portray the degree of violence
that occurred.

In his oral statement, the judge raised two issues that are key in
determining the degree of punishment in this case. First, he stated that the
actions resulted from a "mob mentality" that overtook the men. Second, he
noted that their actions didn't occur in "the heat of the moment," but after
a period of time as they drove to Stanley Park.

Both of these factors demonstrate a serious loss of self-control. Our laws
exist to govern such lapses in our conduct and enforcing them encourages us
to maintain self-control in difficult situations. We all have frustrations;
if law enforcers don't take personal responsibility for their actions under
the law, why should anyone?

That said, punishment for breaking the law typically involves consequences
or losses, as well as rehabilitation to diminish the chance of recidivism.
In this case, the consequences/losses have already been significant to the
officers involved and, given the plethora of inquiries, media coverage and
public shame that they have experienced, they aren't likely to reoffend.