Criminal Justice 8

PM Stephen Harper has introduced a part of his plan to crack down on criminals. Not a moment too soon, I would say. This latest initiative concerns those criminals caught and convicted for the third time of horrendous crimes. The Conservatives will introduce legislation this week requiring repeat violent and sexual predators to prove why they should not be declared dangerous offenders and jailed indefinitely. Police and victims rights groups have applauded the move as long overdue, while criminal defence lawyers attacked it.

Consider that, twice in her life, Mariana Ivancicevic was victimized by Canada's justice system. Now, it's too late. The first time, she was raped. The second time, murdered. Sixteen years ago, in January 1990, Ivancicevic was raped by Garry Joseph Hart, a career criminal who was out on probation for the sexual assault of another woman in July 1988. In his attack on Ivancicevic, Hart bit her, threatened to stab her and repeatedly slapped her. Years later, he was declared a dangerous offender and jailed indefinitely after amassing 33 criminal convictions, 23 involving violence. Years later and after 33 criminal convictions. How much more evidence do you need?

Harper's proposal would end this nonsense. Ivancicevic, 44, was murdered by Robert Linklater, then 23. Linklater was another career criminal who, at the time he killed Ivancicevic, was serving the seventh week of a conditional six-month sentence in the community for punching and stabbing his ex-girlfriend during a violent argument. At the time, Linklater had 57 criminal convictions, mainly for property crimes, but also for aggravated assault. Linklater attacked Ivancicevic for refusing his sexual advances, leaving her to die after hacking her face and head in half. The jury took only 61/2 hours of deliberations to convict him of first-degree murder - and the judge imposed an automatic life sentence, with no chance of parole for 25 years.

Harper's proposal would have this man try to explain why he is no threat to society before being locked away forever. This is known as putting a "reverse onus" on the criminal. At present, the Crown has to prove a repeat criminal is a dangerous offender, a designation which requires such a high standard of evidence that it is rarely attempted, let alone imposed. It's funny how the federal Liberals and Toronto mayor David Miller criticized Harper's proposal almost as soon as he announced it. In the last federal election former Liberal PM Paul Martin and Miller, along with Premier Dalton McGuinty, announced they favoured placing a reverse onus on people accused of gun crimes who seek bail.

To review, less than a year ago they advocated placing the onus on someone simply accused of a gun crime to prove he was not a threat before being granted bail. But now they're against a law to place a similar onus on repeat offenders who have not just been charged, but convicted of violent crimes not just once, but three times.

Harper was also denounced by other members of the "hug a thug" crowd for proposing what they called ineffective legislation that will not survive a constitutional challenge and that mimics U.S.-style "three strikes and you're out" laws. Harper's proposal is different. Reverse onus provisions are already used in Canada when people seek bail for crimes such as terrorism, belonging to a criminal organization and drug trafficking. And Harper isn't proposing that people accused of crime should be presumed guilty, which would be unconstitutional. He's saying that after their third conviction for a major offence, they should have to demonstrate why they should not be designated a dangerous offender and sentenced accordingly.

Let's just hope this legislation comes to fruition and the Liberal mind-set can get their heads out of the sand and see it for what it is. A law to undo years of Liberal neglect when it comes to protecting the general population.