The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.
An employer can fire a terrible worker. A school can expel a troublemaking pupil. So why not a community banishing its undesirables? That's the logic behind an ongoing practice by the Flin Flon RCMP. Police have been asking the courts to ban transient criminals Ð some who lack even a fixed address Ð charged with serious crimes in our community. A limited ban can be added as a condition of bail or probation, meaning the accused must agree to it in order to enjoy those oft-granted privileges. Living in a community should be considered an opportunity, not a right. It's offensive to think there are two-bit thieves, drug dealers or jackasses-of-all criminal trades out there who come to Flin Flon because they see it as ripe for the picking. Not even the bleeding hearts among us are going to say court-ordered bans are a bad idea, but many will question their effectiveness. If Dave the drugdealer drives into town one night and crashes at his burnt-out buddy's place, how likely is it the police will notice him? That's a fair enough question, but it's worth noting that police already know who he is and if they spot him Ð even during a bout of lawfulness Ð he will be scooped up. And let's be realisticÉ will Dave, bless his heart, really avoid an unrelated arrest for long? Some might argue that barring a criminal from Flin Flon is merely passing the buck. It doesn't solve the fundamental problem, since the exported criminal will quite likely go on to perpetrate further misdeeds somewhere else. Again, that's not an unsound line of reasoning. But our police officers aren't paid to save the world, just to make Flin Flon a safer place. Besides, many criminals have run-ins with the law their entire lives; if it's not one transgression against society, it's another. I'd rather see this scenario play itself out in some place other than the streets of our town. It would be a disservice to leave any impression that barring transient lawbreakers Ð and note that the bans are for a set period of time Ð is a perfect solution. Let's not pretend that all of our crime comes from the outside. We have our share of homegrown undesirables. That said, keeping as many bad guys away as possible is a good start. That goes without saying. Something else to consider is that the bans might even help the criminal. With time away from drug customers, shady friends and the like, he may morph into a valuable member of society rather than one who lives on the fringes. What's great about these bans is that they mark one of the few times our lenient courts take off their blinders. Seriously now, is the justice system still surprised when someone sent home one month into a one-year sentence ends up back in handcuffs within weeks? Do judges go, "Well, I'll beÉ I thought maybe after his 37th arrest he finally saw the ill of his ways"? Community bans acknowledge the fact that if a criminal with nothing going for him is allowed to return to the situation that got him arrested, more bad stuff is going to happen. And we sure as hell don't need that. Local Angle runs Fridays.5/15/2006
