RCMP SHOULDN'T FOCUS ON 'VICTIMLESS' CRIMES

To the Editor

(Re:"RCMP reveals plans for 2006", April 6, Advance, p. 1)

RCMP Sgt. Mark Fisher claims that evidence of a busy detachment is
borne out by statistics. Let's have a closer look at those statistics.

"Impaired driving prosecutions jumped by about 50 per cent." That
looks good on the surface, but it takes only a few minutes of
paperwork to generate a prosecution. Far more relevant is the
percentage of increase, if any, in impaired driving convictions,
which require lengthy court appearances by numerous individuals,
especially police officers needed to testify to secure those
convictions. Are prosecutors to driving without due care and
attention so police officers can spend more time looking for
marijuana? Could this be why it is the increase in prosecutions,
rather than a less impressive statistic on convictions, that is being
trumpeted?

AS related statistic, "Motor vehicle accidents increased by 20 per
cent," is puzzling. For example, if 50 percent more drunk drivers
were losing their licences and/or going to jail, one would expect
fewer accidents, not more. In a similar fashion, Fisher trumpets a
64-per-cent increase in assault investigations, rather than a
specified increase, if any, in assault convictions. And the same
could be said for "Charges related to possession of weapons jumped
dramatically." Again, why is it charges, rather than convictions,
that are being trumpeted?

With respect to the increase in domestic violence, one would expect
perpetrators to be less reluctant, not more so, to engage in this
behaviour - which is reprehensible as well as illegal - if police
officers are busier responding to this complaint, And again, why is
there no mention of an increase in convictions of perpetrators of
domestic violence?

And yet, at the same time that the RCMP doesn't have enough time to
patrol the roads sufficiently to reduce vehicular accidents and
discourage street racing, or to patrol residential neighbourhoods
sufficiently to discourage domestic violence, it has the time to
increase drug charges (read "marijuana charges", since you can be
confident they comprise the vast bulk of that 100 % figure) by 100
per cent, investigations of cocaine possession by 225% and accumulate
sufficient evidence to justify drug search warrants.

To review, according to the statistics provided by Fisher, punishing
people for having drugs arbitrarily designated as "illegal" is a
higher priority for the RCMP in Creston than keeping drunk drivers
off the road, keeping violent spouses from beating their partners to
a pulp and keeping violent parents from beating their
children. Readers may have noted that the statistics related to
drugs also do not mention convictions.

IF, just as I surmise is the case with drunk driving, domestic
violence and weapons charges, the conviction statistics for drug
"offenses" are less than impressive, that would support the opinion
already shared by many that it's a waste of valuable police resources
to spend inordinate amounts of time hunting for otherwise law-abiding
citizens whose drugs of preference happen to differ from those of the
cigar-smoking alcoholic politicians intent on criminalizing those who
don't share their predilections.

You can charge anybody with anything anytime, but that doesn't mean
you're doing a good job, especially when few charges result in
convictions and your own statistics suggest that your focus is on
victimless, rather than violent, crimes.

George Kosinski

Gibsons, B.C.