Story here
This may be a good example of the challenges our society faces in balancing the rights of the individual against the rights of both other individuals and society in general.
The individual involved in the recent RCMP shooting is another example.
Our legal traditions are based on consequences in respect of a crime committed, not the possibility of a crime being committed.
This works fine most of the time however, not, in the eyes of society, all of the time.
So, you end up with the 'he was a ticking time bomb' and 'dead separated wife' stories which quite understandably get everyone up in arms...'why wasn't something done before', etc.
After the fact of course, everyone 'knew' something would eventually happen.
Thing is, how many situations occur around the country every day where someone 'is sure something will happen', but it never does, and as a result we never hear about it? How many times does the thing 'everyone knew would happen' actually happen, compared to the time it doesn't?
Kind of like the old 'something told me not to get on the plane' story. We hear these stories when a plane goes down. We don't hear stories about the people who had these 'premonitions' about flights that subsequently went off without a hitch.
There are probably a number of people roaming freely in Canada most of us might, from the perspective of the risk they pose to society, believe should probably not be in the community. However, if these people haven't committed any crime, or at least any crime for which they haven't already paid the consequences mandated by society, or aren't suffering from a mental condition which makes them incapable of functioning in society, either due to a reasonably certainty of their actions causing harm to themselves or others, what do you do with them?
Do you keep some types of offender segregated from society for ever on the chance that some of them may reoffend, e.g. pedophiles get one strike and they're out. If so, is this fair to those among this group that if allowed to excercise their free will do not reoffend.
Do you keep people who terrify a community segregated from the community. If so, what if the terror is invoked simply because the person is 'different'? Who decides what level of 'terror' is required and and whether the 'terror' is in fact reasonable, because we don't have mechanisms to deal with this now.
I saw an old Law and Order episode yesterday that in its contrived way touched on this issue. Basically, you had this mentally disturbed homeless guy who was reasonably okay so long as he wasn't using drugs. When he was in society, he would of course use drugs and 'terrorize' the neighbourhood until he eventually crossed the line and was hospitalized, being that he wasn't competent enought to stand trial on a criminal charge. After he was off drugs, he returned to a reasonably lucid state in which he was no threat to himself or others, was released and inevitably returned to the same neighbourhood and the cycle started again. The show concerned a resident who eventually took the law into his own hands.
The obvious answer was to keep the guy institutionalized however, again he wasn't a threat so long as he didn't use drugs (crack, to be specific). This guy couldn't stay away from it, so the cycle kept repeating itself. But, what about others who did? Should society segregate everyone who has exhibited undesirable behaviour to cover off the poossibility of some amongst the group reoffending. Wouldn't this make the whole concept of free will moot?
If not, at what point, if any, do we say 'no more chances' and, what then do we do with these people? At what point are we willing to circumscribe the rights of the individual because the risk this individual poses to others is just seen by society as being great enough to warrant the same?
It's a pretty fine, and dangerous, line to tread. With 'dangerous offenders' type legislation, we're already on it. Thing is, once you start segregating people on the basis of the risk they pose, rather than a crime actually committed, e.g., a crime you would have received 10 years for now gets you life without parole because you've committed the mandated number of previous serious crimes to warrant the same, where does it end? Who decides what the measure is for an individual who poses a risk, and what constitutes a 'risk', to society is great enough to warrant life long segregation from that society?
And if you're going down this road, are our current notions of jails, etc., appropriate? If you want to segregate someone away from the general community solely for the perceived risk they pose, does it then follow that a penetentiary or similar is appropriate?
Frankly, I'd have no problem at all with all pedophiles, sociopaths, etc. being segregated away in little communities far away from the general population based on the fact that there is currently no cure or rehabilitation that works on either. I'm not saying this is right, just that I wouldn't have a problem with it.
But, this isn't a simple issue and there are risks inherent in any decision society makes in respect of the matter.
