The fact a judge, or retired judge, tells a forum what those in attendance want to hear does not make what is said factual, useful, informed or reflective of reality. They can be as misinformed as anyone. A fact Judge Craig demonstrated repeatedly as he spoke at October’s crime forum in Abbotsford.

Craig said the concept of rehabilitation has replaced the idea of penal consequence when it comes to sentencing, and described it as an abstract process where judges try to transform evil into docility and tractability.

Those who deal with the human cost resulting from the actions (and inactions) of the legal system can tell you that, other than paying lip service to the concept, the legal system is NOT about rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation may be the buzzword currently in vogue in the legal system but the legal system fails to provide anywhere near the levels of housing, programs, services and supports that are needed for recovery and rehabilitation. This failure to provide what is a needed to grant a person a significant opportunity for, or probability of, recovery and rehabilitation reflects the systems lack of an actual commitment or interest in rehabilitation.

An actual commitment to rehabilitation would see increased funding to the corrections branches, not cuts as were made at the federal level.

What the legal system is actually about, as defined by its actions not its words, is cost control.

The system is currently operating at or beyond its capacity. Increasing the level of capacity would require major ($billions$) capital investment in physical plant and significant ($billions$) yearly increases in operating expenditures.

Since this would require either yearly tax increases or large reductions in funding for popular programs such as healthcare, governments have so far talked the talk but failed to provide the needed funding.

The legal system is forced to operate within the constraints imposed by capacity and economic reality and so has become about cost control rather than either rehabilitation (the least costly policy over the long term) or incarceration (a prohibitively costly policy over the long term). These constraints have made cost control the operational imperative of the legal system.

The ‘revolving door’ cited in levelling criticism at the legal system results from cost management – there is no money in the system for incarceration of an ever increasing number of people for longer periods of time.

Judge Craig also said any ideas of legalizing marijuana as a way to stem the tide of money to gangs was ludicrous, and cited the horrific burden on Canadians from alcohol consumption.

This statement leads one to conclude that Judge Craig is sadly lacking an ability for logical analysis and/or that Judge Craig believes that illegal marijuana imposes no cost or burden on Canadians.

If one is to use the costs/burden of marijuana on Canadians as the basis for making the legalization/keep illegal decision you need to be comparing oranges (marijuana) to oranges (marijuana) not oranges (marijuana) to apples (alcohol).

The important burden/cost comparison is what the costs/burdens of having marijuana illegal (which would include the cost of gangs, legal system, incarceration etc) versus the cost/burdens that would result from marijuana if marijuana was legal.

The cost/burden of alcohol has no bearing on the cost/burden of marijuana analysis and therefore should have no bearing on whether marijuana is legal or illegal.

Judge Craig’s statement assumes that the costs/burden of legal marijuana would be higher that the costs/burdens associated with marijuana when it is illegal; a highly questionable conclusion.

Given Judge Craig’s statement that “Alcohol is already a madness on society,” one is left wondering why Judge Craig is not calling for alcohol to be made illegal as marijuana currently is?

If, as Judge Craig asserts, alcohol is a costly burden on Canadians and keeping (making) something illegal (marijuana) results in a lower cost/burden shouldn’t Judge Craig be seeking to add alcohol to the list of illegal drugs?

Of course US prohibition demonstrated clearly the high cost of making a widely used popular product, for which there is a strong high demand, illegal – gangs, gang wars and creation of a highly profitable criminal business.

The high cost being paid by Canadians in dealing with addiction and illegal (or legal) substance use is a direct result of trying to use the legal system to address what is a health issue by criminalizing the human weakness of addiction.

We might as well try to solve obesity and the burden the growing epidemic of obesity imposes on society by making being overweight a crime.

Since the legal system was never designed to address health issues the high costs and failure to make headway should be no surprise to anyone.

There is no such thing as ‘criminal’s rights’. There are ‘Canadian’s rights’ set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that all in Canada are entitled to – rich or poor, male or female, young or old, Anglo-Saxon or other ethnicity, law-abiding or law-breaker, Canadian born or immigrant, citizen or visitor – these rights belong to all.

Before you tell yourself that you are not a criminal and don’t need your rights protected consider those released from prison, after years or decades, when it was found they were wrongly imprisoned. Consider incidents such as the lower mainland resident who was assaulted by police when they went to the wrong door and had the wrong person. With all the inquiries into police and government behaviours, with the changes in technology it is ever more important to have OUR rights protected.

The rights that are being protected are OUR rights, the rights of all Canadians. Equal Rights were created for everyone, which includes those accused (and those guilty) of wrongdoing.

To paraphrase Carl Sagan “with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit that stands between us and the enveloping darkness.”

I say darkness because when the rights of the victim, the victim’s family or society are evoked it is not rights that are being spoken of but vengeance.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Gandhi

Vengeance speaks to the darkness inside us, is rooted in destruction and is a very unhealthy, unwise choice to use as one of the basis of a society.

I have a friend who is so focused on vengeance that this friend wants to bring back the death penalty so Clifford Olson and others can be put to death. When I pointed out that what happened to Guy Paul Morin and others clearly demonstrated that if we had the death penalty innocent people would have been put to death by us (the government on our behalf) this person said it was an acceptable price to pay so Clifford Olson could be executed.

This person goes to church and considers themselves to be a good Christian and feels that killing innocent people is fine if that is what it takes be able to kill Clifford Olson and others like him.

Christian as in Jesus Christ who when asked said to turn the other cheek, who preached forgiveness and love your enemy as thyself.

Focused on vengeance on Clifford Olson and others who have committed heinous crimes this person, and many other Canadians, are willing, even eager, to accept the death of innocent victims as an acceptable price to pay in order to put Clifford Olson and his ilk to death.

To execute Clifford Olson (a killer of innocent victims) they are willing to become killers of innocent victims; in essence to gain vengeance on Clifford Olson et al, they are willing to become Olson – killers innocent victims.

Vengeance is a poison that destroys from within whether it be a person or a society.

Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves. Confucius

What we need to know, to the core of our being, is that what we need to base the discussion on is not the addicts, the criminals and crime but on ourselves.

Talking about what ‘they deserve’ is merely a way to justify our inaction; a justification to let ourselves off the hook for doing what is needed to aid rehabilitation, recovery and wellness.

The decisions we make and the actions we take in dealing with these issues is not about Them, but about Us and the society we want to create, live in and pass to the next generation. The real question is whether we will base our society on the worst in ourselves or the best in ourselves.