Faithfully yours - Justice that is ‘seen’ to be served

Details

Published on Saturday, August 13, 2016

By Neil Strohschein

Neepawa Banner

In the early fall of 1984, Brian Mulroney and Canada’s Progressive Conservatives defeated the Liberals under reigning Prime Minister John Turner and formed a new majority government.

Mulroney’s first act as PM was to fire roughly 250 high ranking civil servants, most of which had been appointed by the previous government, and replace them with his own people.

Now, under normal circumstances, no one would be surprised at this. Every new government does the same thing, especially when a different political party assumes power.

But when Mulroney did it, everyone cried: “Foul!” And for good reason. In the leaders’ debates leading up to the 1984 election, Mulroney had condemned Turner for the dozens of political appointments (mostly Senators and diplomats) he had made after winning the Liberal leadership and implied (though he never said so specifically) that the PCs would do things differently.

After reflecting on Mulroney’s actions for a couple of days, the editor of one of Edmonton’s dailies (I think it was The Edmonton Sun) wrote these words. “We should not be surprised at these appointments. Every new government makes them. But the process used must not only ‘be’ above reproach, it must be ‘seen to be’ above reproach.” In Mulroney’s case, it wasn’t.

The same is true in Canada’s justice system, especially as it relates to crimes against personal property—theft, vandalism, etc. The police and other branches of our justice system do a good job identifying those responsible for these crimes and bringing them to justice.

But after the court case is over and sentence has been passed, the victims of these crimes are often left on their own to clean up the mess left behind. Their financial losses may be covered by insurance, but no amount of money can compensate them for the time they must spend to repair damage or replace property lost as a result of crimes committed against them.

So while justice may be served, in these cases, it is not “seen” to be served.

In the laws God gave the ancient Israelites, he said nothing about imprisonment as punishment for criminal acts. Nor did he say all that much about an elaborate system of fines and other financial penalties that were paid to the government (as happens today). Instead, the focus was on restitution. The one who committed theft, property damage or personal injury had to compensate the victim for the damages—with interest! And the interest rates were very high (see Exodus 22-23 for a detailed list. It will make you glad you didn’t live in those days).

When these rules were consistently applied, justice was not only served, it was “seen” to be served. The victims were fully compensated for their losses by the ones who committed the crimes against them. Once the process was completed, the case was closed. No record of the offense was kept. The offender was to be treated as though nothing had ever happened.

Now I will be the first to admit that the above strategy can’t be applied to all criminal cases. It couldn’t in the day it was given either. But when dealing with the crimes listed above (crimes against property and minor injuries), it’s an option we need to consider more than we do.

Effective use of restitution will, in my view, lay the foundation for meaningful dialogue that will help break down the barriers of racism, prejudice and discrimination that, despite the laws against them, are becoming increasingly evident in our society.

That’s what I will speak about next week.