VANCOUVER'S LES MISERABLES

Allen Richardson seems to be Jean Valjean reincarnated as a '70s hippie. In
1971, Mr. Richardson, or Christopher Perlstein as he was then known, was
convicted of selling $20 (U.S.) worth of LSD to a U.S. undercover police
officer, LSD being the hippie era's equivalent of Jean Valjean's stolen
loaf of bread.

Mr. Perlstein's sentence for this heinous act: four years in jail.

Three months into his sentence, he was told he would be transferred to the
Attica Correctional Facility. This state prison housed some of the hardest
of New York's criminals and, a few weeks earlier, had been the site of a
riot in which 32 inmates and 11 prison employees had been killed. In
response to the news, Mr. Perlstein walked away from his minimum security
work camp.

Eventually, he arrived in Vancouver, changed his name to Allen Richardson,
and began to live what most who know him view as an exemplary life. He has
worked as an engineering technician at the TRIUMF particle accelerator. He
became a director of the West Vancouver Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals.

After 28 years, someone informed on him, and a U.S. judge has ruled that he
must go back to prison and serve out his term.

Although the United States has not requested his extradition, Canada has
begun deportation proceedings on the grounds that Mr. Richardson lied about
having a criminal record and gave an assumed name when he entered the
country. Adding a special poignancy to the situation is the fact that Mr.
Richardson's wife has recently fought off two outbreaks of breast cancer.

The question of how to deal with Mr. Richardson's case goes to the core of
what constitutes judicial fairness. It's hard not to be struck by the
incommensurateness of the sentence and the crime -- particularly
considering the criminal was a 19-year-old first offender and college
student. Mr. Richardson has argued that his prosecution was linked to a
larger police effort to discredit anti-war protesters by entrapping them on
drug charges.

Even if the police acted in absolute good faith, you have to wonder how Mr.
Richardson's reincarceration would benefit anyone. What is prison going to
teach him about reforming his life, which the past 28 years have not
already affirmed?

And what does Canada gain in deporting him? Yes, he lied about his initial
status, but, no, he hasn't reoffended here. Rather, he has become an asset
to both his community and his adopted country.

Ultimately, what seems to worry authorities are questions of process and
precedent. Canadian immigration officials argue that letting Mr. Richardson
stay suggests that Canada is a haven for criminals. U.S. officials fret
that allowing an admitted escapee to avoid jail time undermines the entire
criminal justice system.

What is required to resolve this case is justice's famous discretionary
soul. Canadian immigration should allow Mr. Richardson to remain in this
country for compassionate and humanitarian reasons. A good life should be
able to repair a stupid, youthful, bad act. On the other hand, the United
States should propose that, instead of going back to prison in New York,
Mr. Richardson's sentence be translated into community service in Vancouver.

This reaffirms the principle that crime always leads to punishment without
making the punishment look like a crime unto itself.