IT IS GOOD TO SEE the province cracking down on racing motorists who veer in and out of traffic at breakneck speeds with wanton disregard for the safety of others.

Yet, one has to wonder how justice is served by suspending such drivers for the relatively brief period of seven days pending trial while, in a different and unrelated situation, suspending for a full 90 days without trial - and without any credit for the 90 days served, when or if the court finds the alleged offender guilty.

Consider three scenarios:

Driver No. 1 decides to do a bit of street racing while cold sober, totally devoid of alcohol or drugs, and mentally capable of comprehending the risk he or she is imposing on the public.

Driver No. 2 leaves a formal dinner party having consumed an aperitif, appropriate wines with various courses, a port with dessert, liqueur with coffee, and maybe an after-dinner brandy. He or she drives responsibly, observing all traffic rules, but "blows over" ever so slightly in a RIDE check.

No. 1 was presumably aware of his or her offence. No. 2 probably was not. So the irresponsible offender gets seven days' licence suspension plus the court-imposed penalty, but No. 2 gets 90. And this second driver, if convicted, gets a one-year licence suspension with no credit for the three months already served.

Now consider the hold-up artist in a robbery of a convenience store. The perpetrator is held, let us say, without bail for three months prior to trial. At trial, the Ontario Court judge imposes a sentence of two years less a day - the maximum to be served in a provincial correctional facility. But this convicted criminal can get credit for double the time served in jail while awaiting trial.

We are not condoning any of the foregoing offences. But surely there's something wrong with the relative ways in which the offences are being treated, perhaps because two levels of government happen to be involved.

Placing the offences and the handling of the perpetrators side by side, there appears to be a lack of balance, or adherence to the rule that punishment should fit the crime.

We would suggest that changes to the legislation are indicated, such that Justice may appear to be appropriately served.