Justice system has means to protect children from repeat sex offenders, but is loath to use them

Manitobans have every right to be furious — and more than a little frightened — reading the latest details about Ryan James Knight.

Knight, 44, is a convicted child sex offender who has recently been charged with sexually assaulting two teenage boys after allegedly grooming them and ingratiating himself with their families.

Police describe the allegations as “classic predatory grooming behaviours” — the kind that child-protection experts warn about constantly: playing the long game, building trust, getting access to children and then offending.

The latest charges against Knight have not been proven in court. But what makes this story so egregious is the part we’ve all seen before: Knight (who was born Ryan James Gabourie and legally changed his name following a prison sentence) has been released from jail multiple times over more than a dozen years. And each time, the public is told — in official offender notifications — that he is a high-risk to reoffend.

The question is: why hasn’t he been designated a long-term offender, or a dangerous offender? If the justice system repeatedly warns the public that people like Knight will likely commit sexual crimes again, why does it keep returning them to the community?

There are legal tools that exist to prevent this from happening. Canada has mechanisms specifically designed for repeat offenders such as Knight.

A dangerous offender designation, for example, can result in an indeterminate sentence, meaning the offender stays in prison until the parole board is satisfied they no longer pose an unacceptable risk. It’s not a “life sentence” in name, but it can amount to one in practice.

A long-term offender designation is another tool, used when the offender is deemed likely to reoffend but can potentially be managed in the community under strict supervision. That designation allows courts to impose up to 10 years of long-term supervision after the custodial sentence ends.

These are not obscure provisions buried in the Criminal Code. They are meant to be used in precisely these kinds of cases — chronic, high-risk offenders, particularly sexual predators.

Which is why it’s hard to understand why Knight — a repeat offender whose risk has been publicly flagged for years — has not been dealt with through either route.

There is something deeply backwards about a justice system that issues a warning to the public, essentially saying: we are releasing someone we believe is likely to reoffend, including against children, yet there are few — if any — measures in place to protect society.

Community notifications have their place. Parents deserve information. Communities deserve transparency.

But notifications are not a safety plan. They are not a substitute for incarceration. They do not put an offender under 24-7 supervision. They do not prevent grooming.

When the state tells the public someone is high-risk and releases them anyway, it is quietly transferring responsibility from the justice system to ordinary citizens — parents, schools, coaches and neighbours — who are not trained investigators and do not have access to police intelligence.

It’s not just unfair. It’s dangerous.

People who repeatedly violate release conditions, repeatedly manipulate environments to gain access to children, and repeatedly end up back in the criminal justice system are not sending a complicated message.

They are telling society plainly that they have no interest in reforming their behaviour.

And yet we keep defaulting to the same approach: a sentence, release, conditions, breach, another offence, repeat.

Long-term offender designations are not used often, and for good reason.

Dangerous offender applications require extensive evidence, psychological assessments, expert testimony and significant Crown resources. They can be time-consuming and expensive. They also require prosecutors to meet a high legal threshold, because the consequences for the offender are severe.

But if dangerous offender provisions aren’t being used for repeat child sex offenders with a documented high risk to reoffend, then who exactly are they for?

Every time a repeat offender is arrested again, officials speak solemnly about how serious the allegations are. They should.

But it is not enough to be serious after the fact.

If the state knows someone is high risk — not “might be,” but is — then releasing them into the community and hoping conditions will manage the risk is not prevention. It’s knowingly exposing society to potential danger.

Rehabilitation is important and offenders deserve the chance to change their behaviour. But the justice system’s first duty is not to preserve optimism about rehabilitation. It is to protect the public — especially children — from foreseeable harm.

If the system can predict the harm well enough to warn Manitobans in official notifications, it can predict it well enough to justify stronger measures in court.

tom.brodbeck@freepress.mb.ca