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 unpreferred and unaffordable Interstate Bridge replacement proposal
  Rep. John Ley argues that the Interstate Bridge Replacement proposal is unpreferred, unaffordable, and failing to address congestion, cost transparency, and community concerns.
• 
  POLL: If project costs continue to rise, what should lawmakers do with the I-5 Bridge replacement plan?
  This poll asks readers what lawmakers should do with the I-5 Bridge replacement plan as costs rise and key decisions remain unresolved.
• 
  Opinion: IBR still holding and lying about coming billions in cost overruns
  Joe Cortright argues that Interstate Bridge Replacement officials are deliberately delaying the release of an updated cost estimate that he says could push the project toward $10 billion.
• 
  Opinion: Another problem with strike pay from the UI fund – Potential double-dipping, overpayments
  Elizabeth New (Hovde) argues that Washington’s new strike pay law risks overpayments and double-dipping unless workers are clearly warned at the point of applying for unemployment benefits.
• 
  Letter: A call for competent Interstate Bridge project management
  Rick Vermeers argues that unchecked scope, rising costs, and missed timelines threaten the survival of the Interstate Bridge Replacement project unless light rail is removed.