PROPOSED LAW STRIKES AT CRIME

the Critics Call It the "Three-Strikes and You're Out Law", After the
Heinous California Law by the Same Name.

The two laws, however -- the proposed Canadian law tabled yesterday
in the House of Commons by federal Justice Minister Vic Toews and the
California law -- are not even re-motely similar.

In California, a two-time convicted car thief, who steals a piece of
pizza and is charged and convicted with that crime, can spend the
rest of his life in jail. The California law is unfair in its
disproportionality between the potentially minor crime committed and
the sentence meted out.

As Insp. Shaun Gissing, of Calgary's Organized Crime Section, pointed
out yesterday the California law tends to merely transfer criminality
from one jurisdiction to another, anyway. For in-stance, a drug
dealer in California, convicted twice for minor trafficking, will
move to Nevada or Oregon after his second conviction. Good news
perhaps for California, but a drag for other states.

Canada's proposed new law is entirely different.

Under the legislation, anyone convicted of three serious sexual or
other violent offences would have to convince a judge why he or she
shouldn't be classified as a dangerous offender -- a category that
carries an indefinite prison sentence under the Criminal Code.

In other words, the onus is reversed. The burden of proof to declare
someone a dangerous offender now rests with the Crown. What's more,
only convicted criminals sentenced to 10 or more years in prison face
a dangerous offender application.

Under the proposed law, after a third conviction for a serious
violent crime, it will be up to the serious habitual reoffender to
describe why he shouldn't be declared a dangerous offender.

If he is unable to do that, no key is thrown away, as the hysterical
critics claim. The convict will be eligible for parole in seven
years. By then, the violent dangerous offender, if he really wants to
get out of jail, will have to have taken steps towards rehabilitating
himself before being released, simply be-cause the end of his
sentence is coming up.

The usual suspects -- civil libertarians, criminal de-fence attorneys
(concerned about their bread and butter -- repeat offenders receiving
light sentences) and others say this law violates the presumption of
innocence and other cornerstones of our justice system.

Utter nonsense.

Clearly, critics of this law don't understand the difference be-tween
the words convicted and charged -- or they're pretending they don't
(like those defence attorneys).

The offender will be presumed innocent upon being charged for the
third violent or sexual offence. The Crown must prove, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that said convict committed said violent crime.

If, and only if, they are CONVICTED for their third violent or sexual
crime, then, and only then would the reverse onus of proof fall upon
them for further sentencing.

Unfortunately, there are dozens of cases in Canada that expose --
tragically -- that this new law would save lives and protect innocent
people from life-altering harm.

Peter Whitmore is just the latest notorious pedophile who has
received repeated slaps on the wrist for abducting and raping young
children many more than three times. He never received a sentence of
more than 10 years and yet few Canadians would argue he shouldn't be
locked away for the rest of his life, or at least until he's taken
serious rehabilitation programs, something the sicko has repeatedly
refused to undergo.

Why would he bother when they always let him out anyway?

Now, people such as Whitmore will have a real incentive to change and
prove that change.

This proposed law doesn't strike out at all. It's a homerun.