Rolling the Dice with Violent Offenders

Mark Milke
August 23, 2010
If the chattering classes want to know why the public thinks crime is still an issue, maybe they should look at how "ex"-criminals get to create new victims all over again....

Rolling the Dice with Violent Offenders

Mark Milke
August 23, 2010
If the chattering classes want to know why the public thinks crime is still an issue, maybe they should look at how "ex"-criminals get to create new victims all over again....
Share on facebook
Share on Facebook
Share on twitter
Share on Twitter

If the chattering classes wonder why much of the public is unconvinced by their call to heed the latest, marginally lower crime figures as a reason to dispense with tougher sentencing and more prisons, here’s a suggestion: review some examples of criminals who were released from jail and how their past exits led to new victims.

Here’s one recent example from just this past month. In Calgary, Kelly Davey, 50, was released after a two-year federal prison sentence for sexual assault and failure to comply with a probation order. In their warning, Calgary Police Service notes Davey’s lengthy criminal record — he’s got convictions as far back as 1978 on sexual assault, robbery, assault and uttering threats. But if he’s still such a danger, why didn’t the Crown somewhere in his many past convictions recognize that and petition for him to be classed as a dangerous offender? Instead — and this obviously is not the fault of police — we’re back to dice-rolling on Davey’s future and ours.

Or consider Sean Douglas Macleod, convicted in 1995 of kidnapping a six-year-old girl out of her Calgary home and sexually assaulting her. He was sentenced to 17 years; he was released after one decade and with a caution from the Victoria police that he posed a risk to reoffend.

Then, there was the 2008 story about Vancouverite William Edward Marshall, convicted of breaking and entering, thieving and assaulting — 148 times since 1979. He’s the archetypical example of a chronic offender in the criminal justice system with a revolving door, still receiving only 30- or 90-day sentences.

In 2009, Cory Lawrence Bitternose was convicted of a 2008 sexual assault of two young women in Banff. He’d already had prior convictions for aggravated assault, sexual assault and unlawful confinement. His previous attacks on women included a 1992 Calgary incident where he beat a woman so severely that her face was left with a sneaker imprint. After this last conviction, the Crown sought dangerous offender status for Bitternose.

It is those examples of criminals that explain why many people don’t have a problem with longer sentences, more frequent and early designations of dangerous offender status, and more prisons in which to hold them.

I’m not suggesting the laws shouldn’t be followed in any of these cases, or that they be made retroactive to keep people in longer. A civilized society doesn’t change the rules mid-stream. But in designing reforms and pondering the need for prisons, a civilized society also doesn’t confuse actual compassion with sloppy sentimentality.

Compassion has to be prioritized or it’s not compassion. At the top of my list are children, other innocents, those down on their luck, and the rest of us.

How one prioritizes the exact order at the top of the list doesn’t matter as much as clarity that their rights trump those on the very bottom — criminals who are chronic, violent or sadistic. By their very repetition, they demonstrate they can no longer be trusted with the rights the rest of us naturally assume.

Laws, sentences, and perhaps even the attitudes of some justices — and I emphasize some — must reflect that prioritization, or new victims will result.

To twist the meaning of compassion by conferring the benefits of freedom on those who already frequently abuse it, is not compassionate; it is to replace facts with the fantasy that everyone is redeemable. In terms of their first horrific crimes, exactly how many extra chances should have been given to face-stomping Bitternose or the child rapist Macleod? My answer would be none.

Perhaps the deeper problem here is that at least some social scientists, politicians and justices subscribe to the hubris that their theoretical calculations about who will reoffend are bulletproof representations of reality. Similarly, they also assume the very souls of individual human beings are capable of endless manipulations towards a good end.

On the first fallacy — not yet, if ever; on the second, even if some chronically violent or sadistic sexual offender might never reoffend, remind me why the rest of us must take the risk?

Why we should serve as an endless social science experiment to see if chronic offenders with their umpteenth chance will or will not again maim, rape, assault and murder? That’s folly and an abdication of common sense.

Sensible sentencing for non-dangerous offenders, debates about the same and rehabilitation where possible are all fine questions to visit often. But only in their proper context.

The most compassionate action and the first responsibility of rulers and courts is always to first protect the innocent. That trumps all else, including misplaced fantasies on chronic criminality that allow yet another chance to offend.

Mark Milke is the chairman of the C2C Editorial Board.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

Pictured is Gulliver tied down by the Lilliputians. Illustrating the plight of civil servants under increasing regulation.

Slow Death by Regulation, the Great Public-Sector Disease

When do the words “transparency” and “accountability” mean the opposite of what an untutored citizen might think? Why, when they’re passing the lips of a Canadian civil servant. The federal bureaucracy also seems the one place where the digital revolution made everyone less productive. And while this sounds amusing (if pathetic), the federal bureaucracy’s power and intrusiveness just grow and grow while the freedoms of individuals and voluntary associations shrink and shrink. Former citizenship judge Joe Woodard takes a wry look at these trends and with good humour tracks the deadly serious slide of Canada from a free society in which everything that isn’t specifically forbidden is allowed, into something sadder, darker and more constrained.

Do journalism subsidies work when it comes to maintaining the quality of the industry?

Journalism Subsidies: A Case Study in Government Failure

Judging by the sheer volume of information coming our way, the Canadian news media are the very picture of health. But quantity isn’t indicative of quality, and the age of clickbait could put the final nail in the coffin of the nation’s legacy media. So who cares? Well, as online upstarts fill only a tiny proportion of the resulting void, the size, influence and market share of the taxpayer-subsidized CBC continue to grow – and some want it to grow further still. Could that possibly be good for diversity of news and views? Lydia Miljan lays out what ails the Canadian media business model, charts the deterioration of journalistic quality, points to the bright spots and makes the case for two practical and achievable federal policies that could allow our media sector to save itself.

Even before the collapse in air travel as a result of the lockdown, airport bankruptcy was a real possibility. Now with the collapse of the industry...

Could Canada’s Airports Go Bankrupt? (And Could That Be the Best Thing for Them?)

The debt-fuelled buildout of Canada’s airports, predicated on the dubious though common premise of unending growth in air travel, has stalled badly. While there’s been virtually zero news media attention, it seems the entire Canadian airport operating model could be about to crash and burn – at a time when governments are themselves wildly over-committed through their own borrowing binges. In this thoroughly reported original, Peter Shawn Taylor dissects Canada’s uniquely strange and problematic approach to owning and running airports, explains how we got into this mess and, looking to Europe and Australia for guidance, charts a way back out.

More from this author

Picture of Thomas Hobbes frontispiece of Leviathan. A renowned pieceof political work on liberty

Future of Conservatism Series, Part VII: Memo to Politicians: We’re Not Your Pet Projects

Canadian conservatives have most of the summer to ruminate on what they want their federal party to become – as embodied by their soon-to-be elected leader, anyway. Acceptability, likability and winnability will be key criteria. Above all, however, should be crafting and advancing a compelling policy alternative to today’s managerial liberalism, which has been inflated by the pandemic almost beyond recognition. Mark Milke offers a forceful rebuttal against the Conservative “alternative” comprising little more than a massaged form of top-down management.

Leaders_debate_2019_canada_diversity_bias_free_speech_liberal_conservative

So Much for Diversity: The Monochromatic Moderators of Monday’s Debate

Canada is a big, diverse country by virtually any measure, from our no-longer-so-sparse population to our epic geography to the ethnic makeup of our people. Diverse in every way, it seems, except in our elites’ aggressively progressive official-think. Consistent with this is the otherwise bizarre decision to have Monday’s federal leaders’ debate hosted by five decidedly similar female journalists. Mark Milke briefly profiles the five and, more important, advances a positive alternative: five distinguished women diverse in background, hometown and, above all, thought.

Calumny and Courage in the Energy War

No sooner had Alberta announced its “fight back” strategy to counter misinformation aimed at the province’s key industry – including a public inquiry into foreign funding of anti-energy groups – than the left counterattacked. Instead of mounting facts and evidence of its own, they accused Alberta’s UCP government of violating the human rights of the progressives’ pantheon of designated victims. These shout-down-discredit-and-destroy tactics are ubiquitous tools of leftists nowadays, but in this instance the target may be tougher than expected. Mark Milke explores the energy war’s competing campaigns for the hearts and souls as much as the minds of Canadians.

Share This Story

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print

Donate

Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required
Interests
By providing your email you consent to receive news and updates from C2C Journal. You may unsubscribe at any time.