TREAT THE PROBLEM

For the most part, answers have been hard to come by debate over how
to deal with career criminals who steal from honest hardworking folks
because the crooks need to feed their drug habits.

But there may be a ray of hope in Attorney General Wally Oppal's bid
to establish community court system for chronic offenders who seem
unable to free themselves from the twin evils of addiction and crime.

The prevailing wisdom among criminologists is that longer sentences
and more stringent parole requirements do little to deter crime. On
the other hand, shortening sentences and granting parole more easily
won't stop crooks from committing crimes either.

Oppal's community court concept, which would basically offer reduced
sentences to offenders who agree to treatment, suggests a workable
middle-ground.

The idea also offers a way around one of the most frustrating
shortcomings of the justice system -- it's inability to force chronic
offenders to undergo drug and alcohol treatment. Police, health
authorities and social service agencies all agree that prolific
criminal behaviour can't be stopped until the root cause -- addiction
in most cases -- has been tackled.

It's the best approach for the offender and for society, and yet when
it comes to imposing treatment on a repeat offender, the justice
system is handcuffed.

In theory, community courts would use the promise of early release to
lure offenders into treatment. In theory, these offenders would spend
less time in jail and emerge from prison ready to become productive
members of society. In theory, every addict who makes the transition
will reduce police, court, health-care and social services costs.

But certain measures must be taken ensure the success of the pilot
project. If the government is serious about treating these chronic
offenders, it will have to put more resources into treatment programs.
Solicitor General John Les admitted this week that rehabilitation
resources are limited in the provincial justice system. He also seemed
at ease with the idea of putting chronic offenders into the federal
system where resources are more plentiful.

But simply saying "let the feds pay for it" isn't enough.

The tug of war between federal and provincial resources underscores
the need for judges to impose higher maximum penalties, in order to
offer reduced sentences to offenders who agree to treatment.

For examples a judge could hand out a three-year sentence that directs
a chronic break-and-enter artist into the federal system -- anything
more than two years counts as "federal time". But if that judge cuts
the sentence in half on the promise to follow through with treatment,
the provincial system will have to fund that offender's
rehabilitation. Without adequate resources rehabilitation is just
another pipe dream.

The Criminal Code gives judges a great deal of leeway in sentencing --
for example the maximum for breaking into a private dwelling is life
in prison, although in practice sentences range from a few months to a
few years, depending on the circumstances.

To make the community court idea work, judges will have to hand down
stiffer sentences as a starting point and then "bargain down" with
chronic offenders who agree to undergo treatment.