A lot of ink has been spilled as of late about the Victims Restitution and Compensation Payment Act

thatcame in to effect in January. Long/short of it: The government can seize property used in a crime, and sell it off. The money is to go into a fund that will be used to compensate victims. The rub: the government can sell things off without having to get one of them fancy convictions.

I’ll repeat that: Alberta can arrest you, accuse you of, say, selling dope out of your car, sell said car…all without having to prove that you were, in fact, breaking the law.

Of course, I expect something like this from the Tories – actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if this idea was brought forward by any of the political parties. It’s just the kind of ill-thought out “let’s look tough on crime” idea that most politicians love. It looks nice in the headlines, and any time someone sane objects to it, you can fire back with the specter of gang violence and complain about the difficulties of getting a drug conviction.

Not to sound like an Angry Internet Libertarian (I proudly fall in with the nanny-state liberals, thank you), but it’s really shameful that this got through without at least some citizen outrage.

No, sorry. That’s not the shameful thing. The shameful thing is, while the Journal and the Sun have at least mentioned the controversy surrounding the idea, Metro is gushing over the Act like a grandma over a grade-schooler’s macaroni art:

“Alberta Justice says it will continue to rip a page from Robin Hood by taking money from gangs in order to compensate victims of crime.“

Thanks, Metro. Good job on the lack of restraint there. Also, the thing about Robin Hood: wasn’t real. Because in the real world, we have a name for a guy with an weapon holding up travellers: armed robbers.

If they redistribute the wealth? Socialist armed robbers.

There’s more:

“But the province’s new Victims Restitution and Compensation Payment Act allows for the seizure of cash and property used in crime and then compensates victims and communities affected by criminal activity. “

Not exactly – the Act allows for more than just seizure of property used in a crime because you don’t have a crime without a conviction. Legally, it can’t exist. Like an family reunion without the drunk uncle showing up: it’s a necessary condition. You can be accused of a crime without being convicted, but that’s it.

But Metro doesn’t have time to worry about using words correctly. They barely have the time to point out the fact that the Act can sell off stuff without a conviction. In fact, the only mention of it is half a line in a quote from the dude that’s in charge of selling off the seized goods.

Congratulations, Metro News. While others were are still stuck in the “accurate and balanced reporting” rut, you were forging a new path through the wilds of journalism. A lazy, shameful and ill thought-out path.

Fitting, given the subject matter.

Three dead at the scene of restaurant shooting

Syncrude worker dies on site

Two Canadians shot in Mexico

Two dead after separate avalanches at B.C.’s Whistler Blackcomb

A great start to 2009.