Vancouver resident Peter Bracchi says ‘while this model has helped some people, we should be alarmed at how quickly it’s evolving into a two-tiered legal system’

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and do not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com

Vancouver has prided itself on innovative approaches to justice, including Community Court programs designed to address homelessness and low-level crime through support services. While this model has helped some people, we should be alarmed at how quickly it’s evolving into a two-tiered legal system — where personal background or political sympathy may now determine whether someone is fully held accountable under the law.

Community Court was never intended to replace the judicial system; it was a workaround — first for unhoused individuals — meant to pair accountability with services. But we are now watching this “alternative justice” model being proposed for alcohol-related offenses, mental illness, and veterans — and it doesn’t stop there.

If we follow the logic being applied, we could soon be looking at community courts for:

     •   Individuals who commit crimes (DUI, shoplifting, neglect)

     •   Chronic traffic offenders

     •   People involved in public fights or bar incidents

     •   Teens or adults who harass others online

     •   Repeat animal neglect offenders

     •   Individuals who commit crimes but say they don’t “agree with the law”

What about next year? Courts for social media influencers? Offenders who were “having a bad day”? People who feel misrepresented politically?

This is not compassionate justice — it’s a road toward legal inconsistency, leniency based on identity, and a breakdown in equal accountability. The justice system must be impartial. Carving out alternate paths for certain offenders undermines public trust and invites abuse.

The answer to community problems is not to dilute the law. It’s to enforce the law fairly, help people access services when needed — and apply the same legal standards to all of us.

Peter Bracchi
Vancouver

---

Also read:

• 
  Opinion: ‘The IBR team has been lying to us and thanks to a veteran Oregon journalist, we have the smoking gun’
  Ken Vance argues newly obtained documents show Interstate Bridge Replacement staff withheld updated cost estimates from lawmakers and the public.
• 
  Opinion: State CO2 report shows 86% of Washington’s claimed climate benefits are probably fake
  Todd Myers argues a state climate report significantly overstates emissions reductions and raises concerns about data accuracy and accountability in Washington’s climate spending.
• 
  Opinion: Majority party policies still making life more expensive for Washingtonians
  Rep. John Ley outlines his opposition to new taxes, raises concerns about state spending, and details legislation he plans to pursue during the 2026 Washington legislative session.
• 
  Opinion: What happens when you build a state budget on the most volatile tax sources?
  Ryan Frost argues that relying on volatile tax sources like income and capital gains taxes risks destabilizing Washington’s budget and undermining long-term fiscal planning.
• 
  Letter: Has $450 million been wasted on a bridge that’s too low for the Coast Guard with a foundation too costly to build?
  A Seattle engineer questions whether hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on a bridge design he argues is unnecessarily risky and costly compared to an immersed tunnel alternative.