Editor:
Re: Punishing shift is concerning, Jan. 26 letters.
I respect the many opinions expressed by Pat Petrala in this letter.
However, Petrala takes the position that these opinions on Crime Bill C-10 are correct and other voters need to question the government’s misguided imposition of their will.
Petrala invites others to share her opinion and write regularly to ensure the MP knows he may not be voting in accordance with the majority of constituents. She also mentions Bill C-10 was rushed through the House of Commons without considering the legitimate concerns of individuals, organizations and future generations. This reasoning is speculative and appears to be based on opinion.
Everyone has the right to their own opinion, no matter how diverse it may be. Even the Charter recognizes that “everyone has the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.”
Petrala suggests Bill C-10 is all about punishment and exclusion and would shift justice away from prevention and rehabilitation. The intention of Bill C-10 appears to be toward the protection of society and incarceration of dangerous offenders for serious offences.
Our justice system, including the courts has not accomplished this.
It is evident from daily news reports and victims of crime that there are many dangerous offenders on our streets, committing serious crimes with impunity and without fear of incarceration. Rehabilitation is not a consideration for habitual offenders with long criminal records.
The same Peace Arch News had an article on the front page, stating that in the last month Surrey alone has seen eight shootings, four of them fatal (Legalize pot to disarm gangsters: expert, Jan. 26).
It is apparent our present justice system is not affording adequate protection from dangerous criminals and habitual sex offenders, and it is incumbent on our government to correct this situation so people can feel safe on our streets.
Charles Parrott, Surrey
