Peter Whitmore highlights a key flaw in judicial system

It is much easier to blame than to solve.

However, this attitude of retribution cannot counter the illnesses that plagues our society today -- as is witnessed in the Peter Whitmore case. And yes, I said illness.

The fact is, Peter Whitmore was a confirmed and avowed pedophile. His parole papers clearly stated that he was at 100% risk for re-offending upon release. Yet, according to our punitive judicial system, he had to be released. You do the crime. You do the time. You get released. That's the way it works.

Of course, the initial reaction is that there should be tougher (read: more retributive) laws and punishments for serious offenders, like Peter Whitmore.

There are a number of problems with this potential solution.

The first is that the burden of proof to determine if a person qualifies for serious offender status is placed upon the prosecution. This additional responsibility, then, requires the prosecution to invest more time, more energy, and more resources to make the case. While, in theory, this sounds workable, a quick discussion with any one of Ontario's over-worked prosecutorial offices, and we realize how over-burdened and under-resourced their system is. Taxing this system could only result in delays and, in the worst case scenario, a breach of justice.

Another dilemma posed by these clamours for longer, stricter judicial sentences is that regardless of how long a potential sentence is a convicted criminal will always receive an opportunity for release. It is a well known fact that the adult judicial system offers little in the way of restoration and healing. It is based solely on the punitive judicial model and, as such, concentrates on restricting rather than rejuvenating the convicted persons. While, a number of arguments can be made for both perspectives, a strong case for restitution (as opposed to penalization) is that the released convicts are in a position to appreciate and understand the ramifications of their actions.

Finally, there are already provisions in the criminal code to designate people as dangerous offenders. This provisions are put into place whenever the burden of proof is met and a person is deemed a danger to reoffend. From what I have read, Whitmore fell into this category. He was required to check in with a parole officer upon his release and did so for a year. However, like any parolee, Whitmore's compliance is the lynch-pin to this system. Hence, his non-compliance to check in with court officials (and his subsequent move across the country) meant little could be done until he reoffended.

The fact is there is a very high rate of recitivism in pedophile. Condemning and locking up pedophiles does little to curb this problem and, in fact, may contribute to the escalation. As such, we need to reexamine how we approach criminal acts that are conducted due to compulsion (as opposed to opportunity).

Peter Whitmore was driven by a compulsion. If his illness was little more than a crime of opportunity, then he would have offended while living in Chilliwack or Newfoundland the year after his release. But the reality is, he did not reoffend at these times and, while I am not expert, my guess is that this lack of action on Whitmore's part was due to his attempts to control a compulsion and desire that consumes him.

To simply ignore the components of Whitmore's illness and lock him does not provide the public any protection against people like Whitmore. Instead, it prolongs the inevitable -- again, pedophiles are high-risk re-offenders.

For that reason, we need to examine how we approach high-risk offences, such as recurrent sex crimes, and try a different approach.

A study of the British Columbia Native judicial options showed that people convicted and sentenced in Native judiciary courts had a lower rate of recitivism than their counterparts in the Canadian judicial system -- particularly sex offenders. These results have been replicated across the nation and the continent. The fact is, the Native systems concentrated on community healing, rather than retributive sentencing. While the criminal was still made to pay for their crimes, the punishment focused on how this payment could benefit the community through healing and restoration.

As such, we need to re-examine our approach in our Canadian judicial system. Rather than focusing on the punitive, we need to start solving the issues.

Unfortunately, it often takes a large profile case, such as Whitmore's, to prompt us to action -- I only hope this action focuses on solutions rather than blame.

For more information on Circles of Support and Accountability (support networks to help sex offenders reintegrate into th community) go to:
http://www.cjiwr.com/resources_article_1.html