Criminals should be punished. That is a statement only a true contrarian would attempt to refute and not a position that this newspaper is interested in challenging. However, when punishments do not seem to fit the circumstances of the crime and criminal, it is worth taking a stand.

We have difficulty understanding why it is that Craig Mumby will serve jail time for the two thefts he committed in Jasper. 

In justifying his decision to incarcerate Mumby last Thursday, Judge Donald Norheim claimed that clear instructions from the Court of Appeal limited his ability to pursue justice through any other avenue. While these instructions may have limited this ability, they surely did not remove all possibility for the presiding judge to take a more lenient approach. It is a shame that he did not.

On the face of it, seven months in jail is not an extended period of time to serve for two counts of theft. But when the particulars of this case are examined, what emerges is a situation that seems well-suited for a conditional sentence served in the community. 

To begin with, the victims of Mumby’s crimes, Mountain Park Lodges and the Athabasca Hotel, supported the concept of a suspended or conditional sentence. These businesses and the people directly involved with the perpetrator would logically be most eager for justice to be served, and in their opinion, jail time was an unnecessary step.

Then there is the serious matter of Mumby’s drug addiction at the time he committed the crimes. It was not disputed that this dependency was in large part responsible for what occurred. During sentencing, the judge cited that Mumby had not made any restitution to his first employers between the original offence and the second theft as an aggravating factor. Given his addicted state at the time, was the lack of effort in that regard much of a surprise?

In the time that elapsed between his guilty plea and the sentencing hearing last week, Mumby’s actions towards repayment spoke volumes. Having sold assets to the tune of $4,000, he made it clear that while he may have failed to do so earlier, he was ready to turn his life in a better direction.

An addiction to drugs is not an excuse for criminal behaviour, but it is hard to see why a first-time offender like Craig Mumby would not be given the opportunity to rehabilitate himself in the community with help from his family and friends. This strong support system was evident in the courtroom and did not escape Norheim’s attention.

The judge was understandably anxious to ensure that Mumby enter a drug rehabilitation program, but he could have been compelled to do so as part of a conditional sentence rather than being placed in one during the course of his incarceration. Essentially, the time that Mumby is to spend behind bars will act as a barrier to his recovery and to the restitution process. Having already spent a month in custody, Mumby told the court that he was determined to right the course he had set for himself. Instead of encouraging that Mumby become a contributing member of society as soon as possible, Norheim sent him to jail, believing it to be the only way to send a strong message to the community and to potential offenders.

The message we derived from the sentence was that the judicial system treats offences involving breach of trust quite severely. That’s not a problem in and of itself, but when considered alongside other, more serious crimes, this approach seems somewhat unbalanced.

Earlier in the day on Thursday, a man pled guilty to assaulting his partner. It was not his first offence of this nature and he had previously served jail time. He was fined for breach of probation and sentenced to a further probationary period. Our quarrel is not with Judge Norheim, who was surely following precedent and sentencing procedure for crimes of that nature. The problem lies with those procedures and those practices, which have somehow created a situation where someone who has committed repeated acts of physical violence is seen as less of a threat to the public than a recovering addict who stole from his employers.