Getting a Grip on S. 810

For some reason, Bellator accuses me of being "soft on crime" despite my calls for tougher sentencing (ie. real life imprisonment) for criminals of the ilk of Karla Homolka.

Central to his argument defending section 810 is that it enshrines part of "the state's most sacrosanct duty of protecting its citizens from harm".

The problem here is that the restrictions meted out to Holmolka hardly effect the end of protecting the public. Requiring her to report to police before she travels? Showing up at a police station once a week for 30 seconds to say hi? No consumption of already illegal drugs? These restrictions don't prevent recidivism, especially given that for 6.99 days of the week Homolka is not supervised by the justice system. While one might argue that the measures which she must obey *don't go far enough*, the fact that the measures statutorily expire after 12 months is proof that 810 does nothing for its purported goals. The criminality of supposedly dangerous offenders doesn't expire after a one-year warranty.

In fact, the *only* way to achieve these goals is a full term of imprisonment, and perhaps greater statutory restrictions of plea bargaining of the nature we saw in this case. While some want to spill ink and waste time defending a Criminal Code provision which at best doesn't even effect the salutary ends promoted by its defenders, my preference is to to advocate real measures to protect the public rather than commenting on the Code's pretty window dressing.

Real reform of Canada's justice system cannot occur in the face of such acquiescence to status quo half-measures just because it's better than nothing.