The sentencing of David Robert Hope on March 16 for sexually violating two young University of Victoria students raises a troubling issue 鈥� how repeat offenders should be treated.
The facts are these (and a warning to readers 鈥� what follows is disturbing): Hope forced his way into an apartment shared by two female Chinese exchange students. He demanded they remove their clothes. Both removed their bras but one refused to take off her panties.
Hope made the other young woman remove her underwear and sexually assaulted her. They then offered him money to leave, and accompanied him to a nearby ATM where they withdrew some cash and gave it to him.
According to the court record, Hope was sentenced to eight years in prison for one count of break and enter, two counts of unlawful confinement or imprisonment, two counts of sexual assault and two counts of robbery.
In itself, some would say that sentence seems inadequate. With time deducted for the two years he had already been in custody, and statutory release after two-thirds of his sentence, Hope will spend about five-and-a-half years in prison for inflicting lifelong scars on two innocent young women.
Moreover, the seven convictions registered against him were, respectively, his 45th, 46th, 47th, 48th, 49th, 50th and 51st.
Yet Hope is only 44 years old. That鈥檚 two convictions for every year of his adult life.
And he was free to carry out these sexual attacks because he had just got out of jail early for a robbery he committed in 2014.
Some American states deal with repeat offenders by employing a 鈥渢hree strikes and you鈥檙e out鈥� rule. In essence, someone convicted a third time for a serious or violent offence goes to prison for life.
Most 91原创s would consider that excessive. But if not three strikes and you鈥檙e out, how about 30, or 40, or 50? When is enough enough?
It鈥檚 at this point that a dispute arises. Some thinkers in the legal community believe that crimes should be treated purely at face value.
The sentence, in this view of things, should match the offence. Whether it鈥檚 your first or your 50th doesn鈥檛 alter the seriousness of the crime, and that鈥檚 what counts.
This viewpoint is often backed up with the observation that repeat offenders are frequently scarred themselves. Perhaps they鈥檝e been abused as children, suffer a drug addiction or have a mental-health problem.
And there is some evidence to support that argument. Many repeat offenders find normal life too difficult to deal with. Is it fair to punish them more harshly?
The contrary opinion is that increasingly severe penalties are indeed justified in these circumstances. The primary purpose of our justice system is to protect the community.
Since career criminals are unlikely to reform, lengthy sentences are warranted once this pattern of behaviour emerges.
Judges currently have authority to crack down harder on repeat offenders, but the increment of severity is relatively small. That鈥檚 how Hope managed to cram 51 offences into just 26 adult years.
It鈥檚 also why he was walking the streets less than two years after his 44th offence. Had he still been in jail, two innocent young women would have escaped a terrifying nightmare.
There is no simple answer here. We want our justice system to show compassion, especially for people struggling with demons they have no control over.
On the other hand, we also need to feel that our neighbourhoods are safe, and that the courts share this expectation.
There is, perhaps, one way to determine if the right balance has been struck. David Robert Hope will be a free man before he reaches 50.
All things considered, is that in everyone鈥檚 best interest?
