Who cares about the safety of the general public? The general public, of course, but not the system designed to protect us. They appear not to give a damn.
The Case of Ryan Rowe
Consider the case of Ryan Rowe. In the dark and early hours, Rowe broke into a home, removed all of his clothing, and climbed into the bed of a 61-year-old female occupant, a stranger, and said, “Hey, baby.” Thankfully, she was able to call 911, and he dressed and ran with apparently no further injury. For that offence, Rowe was given a five-year sentence.
Before deciding whether that sentence was sufficient, consider that, as the Toronto Star reported, “Rowe has been convicted of 14 violent crimes as an adult. He also has convictions for property offences and armed robbery. He has repeatedly violated court orders, including probation.” The offences occurred in homes and against women.
Public Needs Protection from Repeat Offender
Rowe is now 31, so he has committed violent offences and been convicted of perpetrating them at a rate of more than once a year. Given the offences occurred over only a 13-year period, at what point could the court have imposed a strong enough sentence to keep Rowe away from the innocent public?
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has proposed a three-strike-and-you-are-out policy for violent criminals. That was called controversial by many and opposed outright by too many. How about five strikes? Eleven? Had Rowe, a recidivist violent criminal of the highest degree, been locked up and kept there after the third time, 11 victims would have never been targeted.
In this latest case, the Crown only asked for five years. Are they not there to protect the innocent, or do they go the easy route and make sure to get to dinner on time?
Judge Hands Rowe a Light Sentence
Ontario Court Justice Brock Jones said, “Targeting a vulnerable woman in her own home while she was asleep for sexual gratification stands apart for its reprehensible nature and its severity.” Jones also said, “A strong argument could have been made for an even greater period of incarceration.” But he did not impose one.
“If he does not actively participate in rehabilitative programs, he will remain a very high risk to re-offend both violently and sexually in the future,” Jones said. But then the judge ensured that Rowe will be back on the street within three years, considering time already served. Leniency from Crown attorney Ed Stimec and from the judge.
Will Bail Reform Bill Fix the System?
The Liberal government has introduced Bill C-14, a bill to get tough on crime. It will, if passed, supposedly make bail less likely in violent crimes and establish a reverse onus, requiring the bail seeker to show the court why they should get bail and be released. Perhaps it is a step in the right direction, but until we are willing to put repeat violent offenders away for life, with no chance of parole, the system itself is at least partially responsible for any future victim.
It was accepted in court that Rowe shows no remorse, has never sought treatment for his drug and alcohol issues, and is considered, without treatment which he resists, to be a danger to re-offend. Why wouldn’t he? He is a serial offender. Whose home might Ryan Rowe visit next in the middle of the night without his pants?
