Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of those viewers tuning in who thought they had somehow switched into the O.J. trial, we are talking about a private member's bill that would have the effect of saying that for serious violent crimes perpetrators would have three strikes and they are out.
Again for the benefit of those just viewing, it is interesting to see how confrontations brew and exist and happen in life. They can happen right here. They can happen everywhere in life, some more violent than others.
Here we have a situation of three strikes and you are out. In my view this started in California where people said one day: "We have to do something about this crime situation we have. Perpetrators do not seem to get punished for it. We have to somehow set the stage so that people know there is an ultimate sanction for doing wrong".
People who have spoken against the notion of three strikes say wait a minute, what is wrong with one strike and you are out? Why should we allow three strikes? Why should it not be one strike and you are out?
There is a good deal of validity to this because when I agreed to speak to this bill, I refreshed my memory on some of the articles I read about, three strikes and you are out.
One of the things I read was with the three strikes and you are out law in place, very often a perpetrator would have absolutely nothing to lose when making that third offence because the third strike was life.
While I am speaking in support of the bill and in support of my colleague, I do so in the full understanding there is a good deal of reservation among those who support the bill and who do not support the bill but for very different reasons.
The one thing people have in common when they are talking about this is the motivation to get us into a three strikes and you are out bill in the first place. There seems to be a sense of frustration with the criminal justice system in that there does not seem to be the kind of sanctions against wrongdoing which would prevent more wrongdoing.
It is almost as though society has become inured to the fact that there are people who are not good citizens, that we are prepared to accept antisocial behaviour and violent behaviour and say this is a fact of life and we have to accept it.
If we society take that view then the member is right, we will have to accept it because we will get a lot more of it. This bill speaks to that motivation in society at large saying do something about it.
An earlier speaker suggested perhaps incarceration was not the answer but then, what is? If incarceration does not make the perpetrator better, at least it protects citizens.
Our responsibility as legislators is to put the rights of the victims ahead of the rights of the criminals. The balance of doubt has to lie in favour of the innocent victim. The balance of doubt should no longer lie in favour of the perpetrator.