HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Content-Type: text/html
Utopia Now!
Pubdate: Tue, 18 Jul 2006
Source: Robson Valley Times (CN BC)
Copyright: 2006 Miro International Pty Ltd.
Contact: http://www.robsonvalleytimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/4087
Author: Andru McCracken
UTOPIA NOW!
At this week's council meeting Valemount Mayor Jeannette Townsend
suggested (again) that people convicted of crimes should pay for the
court costs. She brought the same resolution to last year's Union of
BC Municipalities' annual general meeting, and is wondering why it has
been dropped.
The idea is this: Convicts should pay for the Crown prosecutors, the
time taken for the investigation, the police car, fuel, the judge, the
clerk, and likely even the cost of keeping the courthouse in good trim.
It's a clever idea in a way. Why should taxpayers like you and I have
to pay for the actions of criminals?
When the idea was last presented to the public at Tuesday's council
meeting, the example was given of a Valemount resident who grew
marijuana plants in their home. According to the story, the court
found them guilty and handed them a $250 fine. The local sergeant at
the time felt it wasn't enough; the mayor felt likewise.
In my mind we're missing a major piece of the puzzle here. Why did the
judge give such a light sentence? Perhaps the plants were for personal
use, or the individual didn't present a threat to the community. Maybe
their crime just doesn't warrant a huge bill from police and the judges.
I encourage council to give this idea some more thought before taking
this proposal back to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities
this fall.
What if someone was involved in a lengthy trial and later found to be
innocent, except for some minor charge? Does the 'convict' have to pay
for the whole deal?
If you were charged with shoplifting, would you have to pay $2000 for
shoplifting a bag of peanuts?
Imagine what a speeding ticket would cost.
What about young offenders who really are guilty? Would they pay the
Judge's salary back at $8.00 per hour, or would they do it on the
training wage? Could they make the money back by working on someone's
farm as a landless labourer, a modern serf?
That people convicted of crimes should pay to keep judges in their
mansions, police in their RCMP owned homes, and Crown prosecutors in
flowing robes is asinine. However this grand idea doesn't stop there.
We hear that the criminal's assets should be seized.
What happens to a young family? Should we pay our police officers by
confiscating the family's mini-van? Television? How about the baby
carriage?
This idea is a clever one indeed. It's also one of the most
thoughtless ones that I've ever heard of.
The reason WE pay for policing is because WE want to be safe. The
reason WE pay for the courts, the clerks, judges and Crown prosecutors
is because WE believe in Justice.
In the spirit of this new law, council might consider making the trek
to UBCM on their own dime.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Derek