JUSTICE MUST BE SEEN TO BE DONE

Not having a great deal of experience standing before a judge, I
always puzzle over the rationale of sentencing.

Why for instance does a man who hits another, just once, get six years
in federal prison, while a woman who admittedly drinks at least three
glasses of wine before driving, kills a child, maims her aunt and
injures her grandparents, receives only two and a half years?

How too do drug smugglers, by offering up the apparently acceptable
excuse that "I didn't know it was in my truck," get off scott-free?

In the case of the first mentioned, the act was described as a "hate
crime" . . . a straight guy bashes a gay guy in frustration after
being repeatedly approached. My first reaction was, if the obviously
homophobic puncher didn't want to be approached, what was he doing
in a gay bar in the first place, and why didn't he leave after the
first "'pick-up' attempt?

I can somewhat empathize with his displeasure at being hit on more
than once, but that was no reason for an attack that caused great and
grievous harm to the victim.

Obviously the court agreed, and so the perpetrator was given six years
in the slammer where, among other things it can be assumed he will,
willingly or not, have his reaction to sexual mano-a-mano changed.

However, if for this despicable attack a six-year sentence is
appropriate, where is the correlation for the prison time given
someone who, equally thoughtless, gets drunk, climbs behind the wheel
and kills a child . . . a child, by the way, who was standing at a
fence, well off the road and in care of her aunt.

There was much talk of the driver being, as I'm sure she was,
remorseful and willing to accept full responsibility for her terrible
decision and death-dealing action behind the wheel.

If she is so willing to take responsibility for this heart-rending
tragedy, why is she now appealing what I believe, in comparison to the
above, is little more than a slap on the wrist?

If someone gets six years for a devastating punch, then death and
injury should result at least in a decade or more behind bars.

If we are to side with those who believe incarceration is meant only
to penalize those who would do further harm to society, and not be
seen as retribution for wrong-doing, then I suppose the courts chose
wisely.

However, if there is no penalty, or just a light penalty, then where
is the deterrent ... for the person who committed the wrongful act,
and for others who shrug off their own transgressions knowing there
will be little consequence for their actions, other than to their victims?

Just ask those who smuggle drugs, or operate grow-ops. They get
caught, they argue they didn't know they had the stuff with them,
and they walk free. Or last week when a pair, who had been observed
attending a West Vancouver grow - in British Properties no less -
were then stopped by police after they have left the operation. Unfair
said the judge, and chastised the cops rather than the crooks.

Deterrence, obviously, isn't in the lexicon of many who sit on our
courts' benches.

We have over time in this great land of ours, created what is known as
a "'just society.'

Unfortunately, somewhere along the line, the root word "'just'
seems to have been forgotten in the "'justice' meted out in some
courtrooms.

Discretion, exercised through due diligence and based on evidence, in
the minds of those who deliver sentences is welcome and needed. But
there is still a need, in proper society, for justice not only to have
been done, but seen to be done.