Our Farcical Parole Laws

And let's not forget the farce even before they start serving time......concurrent sentencing and time allowed for the period before going to trial.

Our farcical parole laws

By TOM BRODBECK

You've got to wonder what the point is of handing out stiff sentences for serious crimes, given our lax parole laws.

We demand that courts take violent crimes like armed robbery seriously by meting out harsh penalties to send a clear message to the public that we don't tolerate such behaviour.

When a harsh sentence is handed out by a judge -- say eight years in prison for multiple counts of armed robbery -- most of us nod our heads in agreement, satisfied that justice has been served.

But has it, when you hear the guy who got eight years is eligible to go home, sleep in his own bed and go back to work or school after serving just a little more than 21/2 years in prison?

Not really.

That's the story of serial bank robber Klaus Burlakow, who repeatedly terrorized bank tellers at gunpoint and once pointed a gun in the face of a teller in front of her teenage son.

He was given a stiff, eight-year prison term by provincial court Judge Judith Webster (which earned her a Hard-Ball Award in this column).

What we often forget, though, is if the criminal plays his cards right, he won't serve anywhere near the sentence handed down by the court.

For most crimes, offenders are eligible for full parole after serving only one-third of their sentence or seven years -- whichever comes first.

And, make no mistake, full parole is virtually full freedom.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Brodbeck_Tom/2006/09/27/pf-1904878.htm

l