PUT A LOCK ON THE REVOLVING DOOR OF JUSTICE

In last week's go-git-'em column on gangs, I made passing reference to the
revolving door court system.

Pounding that point home is a study by Abbotsford Police Const. Ian Parks,
who researched the criminal histories of repeat property crime offenders.

Published in our Thursday edition, his findings are utterly stunning.

If they don't cause judges to question what they're doing, then who knows
what will.

If his research doesn't shame federal politicians of all stripes - but
particularly those of liberal bent who subscribe to the molly-coddling of
criminals - then probably nothing can.

In 2006, Parks identified 456 people convicted of property crimes and
examined their criminal background, re-offences over the following two
years, and the court's response to target charges and its sentencing
practices.

Of that group, he identified 46 individuals as "super prolific" offenders,
meaning they had 30-plus convictions for property crime.

In fact, they had far more - with an average of 47 convictions.

And it gets worse.

Parks found that while 80 per cent of the offenders, nearly 40 per cent
got no more than a day behind bars, and another 50 per cent received
sentences of less than two weeks.

Employing remarkable restraint, Parks calls the justice system "alarmingly
inadequate."

How about ludicrous. Outrageous. Appalling.

There can't be any sensible justification for allowing these chronic
criminals back onto the streets, time after time after time.

I'm aware that some years ago, the federal government let it be known that
it wanted fewer people sent to jail.

Judges and Crown were to consider other alternatives to prison.

For first or second-time offenders, I get that. Try probation, and
community service, and monitoring, and rehabilitation, and drug addiction
treatment, and counselling, and life skills training, and whatever else is
at our disposal to help someone to turn his or her life around.

People deserve a second chance, maybe even a third.

But 30? Forty?

As Parks says, maybe the American system of three strikes and you're out,
is a touch harsh. But how about 30 strikes and you're out!

I'd say 10 criminal convictions, and it's so long to freedom for five years.

I'd bet many of you would recommend 10 years.

Mandatory. No parole, no day passes, no breaks. You're done. Mandatory
incarceration goes beyond merely punishment.

The judicial system is doing a tremendous disservice to society - and the
individual - by tossing them back onto the street.

Most property crime is directly related to substance abuse issues. These
guys are financing drug habits.

Turfing them out after only a few days/weeks/months in jail simply means
they aren't free of their addictions, and it's right back to crime for
cash.

A long stint in prison has to be coupled with treatment programs, and all
the other rehabilitation tools.

And if all that doesn't work in one or two long-term go-arounds, then
let's have the collective guts to say "Sorry, we tried, you're a lost
cause. We're moving on, you're staying behind bars."

What's happening now is beyond all reason, to say nothing of monumentally
expensive, in terms of victims' costs, law enforcement, court proceedings,
incarceration (albeit so brief), social services, and a host of other
related costs.

Politicians make laws, and Crown and judges apply them.

Let's get on that, shall we?