ADDRESSING THE OUTRAGE

RARELY a day goes by without reports of some fresh outrage in
Manitoba's justice system.

High-profile cases collapse in courts, some of which are so
overwhelmed that there exists concern that justice delayed is becoming
justice denied. Remand centres and provincial jails are packed beyond
capacity so that conditions are inadequate, leading to
double-time-served reductions in sentences as compensation.
Investigations too often fail to produce evidence sufficient to yield
convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.

Arrest warrants are issued but seldom served. Conditions of probation
are flouted with impunity for lack of resources to enforce them. There
are not sufficient programs to prevent predictable recidivism, among
drug addicts, for example. In areas where there has been significant
increases in resources -- gangs and car theft -- there has not been
much evidence of success.

Which is not to say that crime is out of control in Manitoba -- our
rates for most offences are in line with rates elsewhere in Canada --
but it is to say that there appears to be a lot that needs fixing.

To that end, Conservative Leader Hugh McFadyen has usefully painted a
big-picture response to the myriad of outrages. To be sure, part of
his inspiration must be a desire to out law-and-order the NDP and
reclaim crime fighting as a Conservative issue. And without doubt, his
rhetoric often is overheated, and sometimes offensive, as in his
statement that the Justice department should focus on convictions. No
it shouldn't. It should focus on upholding the law, and that includes
waiving charges not supported by evidence. He also is wrong to pander
on the issue of selecting judges by adding police and victims to the
selection panel. Manitoba's process is the best in the country. Don't
fix what isn't broken.

That said, however, the fact is that Mr. McFadyen has a
"comprehensive" plan, one that doesn't tinker at the edges but
addresses most of the outrages. More judges with more support workers
including case managers. More police, a lot more police, 222 of them,
and, again, with support workers such as crime analysts. He would even
create new kinds of officers -- sheriffs, for example, that would
enforce traffic law. He would split up the Justice Department so as to
have the prosecution functions separate from the more administrative
functions, including a new role operating a "police college" to
produce special constables and sheriffs. The case for the split has
not been adequately made -- it might simply lead to a bigger
bureaucracy, but it might better focus resources so that even little
programs like rehabilitation get the funding and attention they deserve.

Most glaringly absent is the analysis that shows that the parade of
outrages that make headlines is more than a series of unhappy
anecdotes. Mr. McFadyen says that his plan will cost $40 million a
year. That's a lot of money to throw at crime fighting. If it's
necessary, Manitobans won't begrudge it. But without a cost-benefit
analysis, this level of spending might only be another outrage.