Posts Tagged ‘policy’
Posted on: April 30th, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
And while we’re at it, let’s also talk about prevention, addictions and compassion.
I suppose you’re wondering, where am I going with all of this? Well, the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council recently held the 34th Annual Justice Dinner, an awareness-raising event about local justice issues. Our guest was The Honourable Justice Kofi Barnes, who started the very first Drug Treatment Court in 1998 in Toronto.
I was expecting a chronology and history about the initiation and implementation of the first Drug Treatment Court. However, I found myself leaning in a bit closer when Justice Barnes told his own personal story – how he was handed the task of finding alternative ways of dealing with the revolving door of people in courts and corrections who clearly had underlying addictions or mental health issues. Admittedly, fueled, in part, by a desire to preserve his career, and in part inspired by his own father, Justice Barnes spent 4 years developing an alternative ‘problem solving court’ which, 14 years later, has grown to more than 10 drug treatment and mental health courts in Canada.
What struck me most was Justice Barnes’ insistence that we need to move beyond our narrow view of ‘justice’ as ‘the letter of the law’ in every case. Rather, ‘justice’ must find a balance for the person who has committed a crime, the victim and our community as a whole. Rightly, he claims that it serves none of these if we never deal with the root cause of a problem. Regular Smart on Crime guest blogger Frank Johnson, put it this way:
“Drug treatment and mental health treatment courts are two approaches where the particular needs of individuals that may have contributed to criminal behaviour are addressed in a supportive yet accountable environment. In these courts the emphasis is on preserving the dignity of those involved with crime by holding them accountable while providing them with the tools to make changes in their lives, where change is possible. This is a recognition that a ‘cookie-cutter’ approach to justice has not and will not reduce crime or the recidivism rate. It makes social and economic sense, as the more alternatives to prison we create, the more benefit we see to taxpayers by reducing the costs of crime.”
Justice Barnes admits that he had a hard time convincing his colleagues in the courts, corrections and law enforcement communities that this approach could work. But gradually, as people from these systems had opportunities to participate in the alternative processes and saw the humanity present there, they became easy converts.
Justice Barnes’ story of personal connection and the potential for system change has stuck with me now for days. In fact, it reminded me of this Ted Talk by Bryan Stevenson “We need to talk about an injustice“. While Stevenson is a lawyer in the southern United States and daily confronts the issue of race in the U.S Criminal Justice system, the parallels between his talk and that of Justice Barnes is not lost on me.
They both believe in the need for justice that is based on hope and tied to dignity and compassion. They both believe that each of us is more than the worst thing we’ve ever done. They both believe that each of us has a basic fundamental human dignity that must be respected by law. They both believe that our whole community is made stronger when we use smart on crime approaches that address the greatest injustices.
While it’s the more challenging place to be and to work, it will ultimately make us more human. And isn’t that what we should all be working for?
I’m interested in hearing your thoughts about the Honourable Justice Barnes’ talk at the Justice Dinner. What has stuck with you? What inspired you or challenged you? Let us know.
In the meantime, watch the talk from Bryan Stevenson.
Posted on: February 2nd, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Some time ago two articles from the Globe and Mail collided with such force that it woke me from my early morning stupor. Without the clarity induced by several cups of coffee, I might not have made the connection. The first article by Margaret Wente, “ Why Alex can’t add (or subtract, multiply or divide)“, attracted my attention as a retired teacher. Ms. Wente was at her incisive best in calling into question the most recent trend in mathematics education which stresses a language-based approach to the learning of mathematics. With this, teachers have students talk and write about their solutions with an emphasis on being able to explain the rationale behind a particular answer as opposed to the more traditional rote approach of memory work, such as the multiplication tables and dividing the smaller number into the bigger number, as those from my age group remember so well. She, and a growing number of teachers and university professors are worried because these “basics” are not being taught; the result being a lack of understanding of simple mathematical processes which can harm students not only in university, but with balancing a chequebook. The other article, “Huge price tag for provinces attached to crime bill” by Kim Mackrael highlighted the hidden but expected costs of implementing Bill C-10. The Globe and Mail used information available from background papers noting the cost of full implementation of the bill could be much higher than recent estimates offered by the Minister of Justice. These papers suggest that changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act alone could cost an estimated $717 million over a five-year period whereas the Minister is pegging the bill for the entire “Safe Streets and Communities Act” at $78.6 million over five years with the expectation that the provinces will pony up half the costs. That’s quite a difference.
There seemed to be silence from some provinces about the downloading of the costs for a bill they did not support. Except for Ontario and Quebec, not much was being said. Then in an article from January 26th in The Globe and Mail, it was reported that the Ontario government, along with most other provincial governments, have attached estimates to their already strained budgets caused by the implementation of Bill C-10. Ontario’s Minister of Correctional Services is quoted as saying the cost to the province for its implementation will be close to one billion dollars. Yes, $1B . It looks smaller when it is not spelled out but it’s still a whack of money…our money.
Now, I was never a math whiz but that works out to almost 10 times more than the Minister said it would be. Ten times. Wow! Maybe he should have spent more time on his multiplication tables. Can you imagine trying to convince a significant other that a projected purchase is one figure and then it turns out to be ten times more than the agreed upon price? Now, when I say ‘agreed upon’, that doesn’t even come close to describing the reaction of provincial governments like Ontario and Quebec which reject the notion that they should be paying costs of more people (particularly young offenders) being sent to prison because of the new mandatory minimum sentences. There really isn’t much agreement between the two levels of government on the approach evident in C-10. In fact, it flies in the face of extensive data and research on what a ‘smart on crime’ stance looks like. Mind you, the Minister has been extensively quoted as saying that his party doesn’t get hung up on statistics. So, if you don’t use an evidence-based approach to creating policy what do you use? Ideology? Polling? Intuition? The crime rate is falling and has been for more than two decades now. That is a fact. Facts should matter.
So should simple mathematics.
Maybe Bill C10 is like new math. If you can explain the rationale behind the potential costs that’s good enough for an A. But I don’t think it works that way. In this case there needs to be some accountability for the final answer – the real costs of implementing Bill C10. Have I become like Margaret Wente bemoaning the fact we don’t drill kids on their times tables any more like we did 34 years ago? Is she wrong? I don’t think she is.
If Ms Wente is right then maybe that means I might be on to something as well, don’t you think? Of course, it might just be the wistfulness of old age. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this one.
Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.
Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Crime Prevention Council.
Posted on: January 24th, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
An underlying premise of Bill C-10, the government’s anti-crime omnibus bill, is that our country has become less safe, therefore making it necessary for harsher consequences for those who violate the law. This premise is based more on perception than actual data. One need only look at the political discourse during elections to realize that if one tells a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. Even the title of the Bill, “The Safe Streets and Communities Act” gives an impression that our streets and communities aren’t safe, that our venturing out could be reminiscent of Little Red Riding Hood coming across the Wolf on a regular basis. Language is powerful and our choice of words like this (“safe streets and communities”) are meant to have an emotional trigger, much like the US has used in creating the “Patriot Act” and “Department of Homeland Security”. These words were no doubt chosen for a specific purpose, they are evocative and intentional. They allow citizens to embrace the actions emanating from the legislation because they will allegedly bring safer communities to those who uphold the laws of the nation while punishing the guilty, perhaps (and here’s the scary part) without questioning the rationale behind the new legislation.
Are our streets really that unsafe? Data available to all of us show that the rates of many crimes are in decline. So, it’s not that we have become less safe, it’s that we think we have. Why is that? Do we have a fixation for crime shows where murder and assault are rampant? Are there factors such as alienation from our neighbours or perceptions about our neighbourhoods that lead to some of us feeling unsafe? Does our fear or perhaps a past experience with crime drive us to want tougher laws and harsher punishments? Do we more easily depend upon government to solve these as opposed to community-based solutions such as those suggested by the local Crime Prevention Council? We could likely debate this for years before coming to consensus.
Into this discussion comes a controversial new book by Steven Pinker, “The Better Angels of our Nature” which posits that the world has actually grown less violent and therefore safer over the years. Pinker draws upon available data (much of it European) and charts the rise and fall of violence and torture over several centuries. Institutions like states and churches have evolved over this time moving away from ideas of retribution and torture used most often in the Crusades and the Inquisition but more recently in underdeveloped political systems. According to a recent review in Newsweek magazine by Robin Marantz Henig, Pinker posits that over the course of several hundred years the data shows that brutality and violence has decreased as society has moved from the hunter-gatherer mode, through the Enlightenment to the present time. In her review she states,
“Pinker looks for explanations for these advances within the individual. Human nature, he says, consists of a constant pull of good and evil. He identifies five “inner demons”-sadism, revenge, dominance, violence in pursuit of an ideology-that struggle with four “better angels”: self-control, empathy, morality and reason. Over the years, Pinker says, the forces of civilization have increasingly given the good in us the upper hand.”
It would seem that our task as a society, in our schools, churches, government is to increase the opportunity for these better angels to flourish.
This brings me back to my original question. Why then do we sometimes feel fearful of being victimized? Should I blame the media in influencing our perceptions of crime through highlighting crimes on the first page of the paper or at the beginning of a newscast (“if it bleeds, it leads”)? Does this sensationalization feed upon our fears of being a victim of crime and can keep us away from areas we perceive to be unsafe even though the data may not support such a belief? If anything, this fear gives governments the opportunity to advance an agenda that can be considered reactive or worse. Bill C-10 is a reflection of this agenda because it does not reflect the root causes of crime. It does not appear to consider the disparities in society or the role mental health, poverty, unemployment and addiction can play in crime. Rather than create opportunities for support for those struggling with these issues, it can be seen to punish and stigmatize them.
I recognize my views are not universally held. In fact, in some circles I would be in the distinct minority. The public discourse about the legislation is one of the benefits of our democracy. We are allowed to hold divergent views. But discussion of legislation like “The Safe Streets and Communities Act” and its impact on society in a structural, fiscal and moral sense can only gain ground when citizens make themselves aware of the legislation and its impact. When I bring up the topic in conversations with friends or family, very few know of the legislation. This isn’t a criticism. It’s the reality governments depend upon, particularly those with a majority. Again, not a criticism, just a reality. Only when we see the effects of overcrowded prisons and the concomitant expansion of correctional facilities due to mandatory minimum sentences and the resultant costs of this reflected in our taxes, will the questions begin. The first of which may be how we got ourselves into this mess.
So why does this matter? If we are willing to accept or even consider Pinker’s position, it means that we need to give legislation like Bill C-10 the “sober second thought” the Senate was created to provide. If crime and violence are not as prevalent as in the past, why is this Government creating legislation that is regressive and plays upon people’s fears and inner demons and not their better angels? What do you think? Let me know by sending me a response.
Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.
Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Crime Prevention Council.
Posted on: January 19th, 2012 by Smart on Crime
Thank you to everyone for reading, sharing and commenting on our previous 5 posts outlining the position of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council with respect to the Omnibus Crime Bill (C-10), the Safe Streets and Communities Act. One of the most common questions we received was, “So… what happens now? Has the Bill fully passed? How soon could this all start happening?”
People lamented not paying more attention in high school Civics class!
Here’s what we know.
The Safe Streets and Communities Act was passed in the House of Commons on December 5, 2011. Bill C-10 passed first and second reading in the Senate by December 16, 2011. It was then referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, where it rests until Members return to the Senate on January 31, 2012. It is expected to remain with this Senate committee for several weeks in early February and then return to the Senate for a third and final vote expected around mid-February. It is expected to pass. After that, it becomes legal reality.
We’ve also been following some of the speeches and discussion regarding Bill C-10, every word of which can be found online via the parliamentary website.
If you want to read what has been said by individual Members of Parliament about Bill C-10 in the House of Commons, the open data website, openparliament.ca, provides a quick source, along with a full record of the votes. We also took a look at the presentations made by witnesses (delegations) before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to gauge the level of support or opposition for Bill C-10.
Every justice based, crime prevention-oriented organization and community across Canada, whether in support or opposition to Bill C-10, will be waiting to see how the next steps play out. Bill C-10 could change the face of the Canadian justice system as we know it and we will all be affected, directly or indirectly, in some way.
So, now we wait….
Special thanks to Olivia Boyington (University of Waterloo) and Kayla Follet (Wilfrid Laurier University, Lyle S. Hallman School of Social Work) for preparing the summary of presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Posted on: January 12th, 2012 by Smart on Crime
Of course! Who wouldn’t support a greater voice for victims? Who wouldn’t agree that internet sexual exploitation of children must be stopped? Who wouldn’t want to send the message that one crime is one crime too many?
WRCPC wishes for and works for safer streets and communities and we do so alongside many other municipalities. But we are deeply troubled by the wholesale nature of the proposed legislation whereby Canadians need to accept the bad with the good. The government has a mandate to invest in the prevention of crime and to bring justice. C-10 as an omnibus bill simply cannot accomplish that.
We therefore ask that the Senate of Canada do due diligence and engage in sober second thought and review C-‐10 bill by bill, step by step as the only reasonable review to deal with the complexity of the legislation at hand. We also ask that prevention be taken seriously during this review. Prevention has worked, continues to work and stands a better chance of delivering safe streets and communities than C-10 in its current form can.
We went to hear from you. What do you think about the potential for Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act?
This is the last section of the position paper from the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council. Earlier sections of the position paper are available here on the Smart on Crime blog:
Posted on: January 11th, 2012 by Smart on Crime
It costs anywhere from $70,000 to over $130,000 annually to house one person in a correctional facility. Many of these inmates have a history of low educational and employment achievements, learning disabilities, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder issues, significant mental health and addiction challenges or other mitigating factors that may have contributed to their actions. These conditions do not excuse their actions but it helps us to understand them with a view to prevention. While in the past these considerations were part of the application of the law for the purpose of rehabilitation (a key correctional mandate), providing only for aggravating circumstances in mandatory minimum sentences decontextualizes crime. This approach will without doubt create a sizeable group of prisoners with little to no chance of succeeding in society upon their release. Mandatory minimum sentences make the offender, his or her context, personality, upbringing, intellect, morality or addiction irrelevant. They fail to take into account ongoing treatment needs for addictions or mental health issues or developmental delays. Minimum sentences also adversely affect the family the perpetrator leaves behind, particularly if there are children in continued need of support. This increases the risks for children whose parents are incarcerated, extends the cycle of victimization and extends the root conditions that lead to crime to the next generation. Simply stated, the human and financial costs of pro-social measures will always be substantially lower than costs of increased incarceration. Downloading a vast share of these costs to provincial governments, that are already financially stressed, will significantly hinder our collective ability to fund and advance rehabilitation efforts.
This is section four of the Bill C-10 position released by the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council (WRCPC). Earlier sections of the position paper are available here on the Smart on Crime blog:
Tomorrow we will post the fifth and final section of the position paper.
Posted on: January 10th, 2012 by Smart on Crime
This is section three of the Bill C-10 position released by the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council (WRCPC). Earlier sections of the position paper are available here on the Smart on Crime blog:
Over the next week we will post one position paper section each day for discussion and dialogue. Our position paper was sent to all Members of the Senate as well as our local Members of Parliament in December 2011.
The Government of Canada is attempting to solve a problem that is already on the decline and this decline is in no small part due to the efforts of many individuals, groups and local communities across the country. Canada has seen a largely consistent decline in the rates of crime. Police-reported crime rates, which measure the overall volume of crime, also continued to decline in 2010 reaching the lowest level since 1973. With falling crime rates across the country C-‐10 makes a promise to develop greater safety in streets and communities by relying on the law alone. Inevitably this promise will be broken, likely leading to a call for even tougher measures in the future. Community engagement is critical to ensure that crime prevention remains the responsibility of all Canadians: parents, teachers, community leaders and many others. It is smart to continue to find ways to increase that engagement beyond the formal system of justice. The law is too blunt an instrument to deal with the complexity of public safety and security home by home, street by street, and community by community. All citizens need to be engaged in all facets of the prevention and justice continuum. It has taken Canadians well over two decades to see such increases in community engagement for crime prevention. It was challenging to get beyond the passivity of leaving it to the government of the day. C-‐10 is going “back to the future” who meaningfully engage in keeping their communities safe.
Similar laws are dismissed in other countries as expensive, ineffective and overly reliant on government because they ignored the capacities for pro-social measures and viable alternative approaches such as restorative justice. Measures that address the roots of crime are not only cost effective but they provide the significant savings in human suffering. Police services across the country have long recognized this potential and engage with it. Communities cannot accomplish their task by means of charity. A strategic investment at all orders of government is needed.
What do you think? Does C-10 diminish the community involvement in prevention that is needed to keep Canada safe?
You can download the full position paper here and be sure to visit the Smart on Crime blog each day over the next week to participate in the discussion on the remaining sections of the position paper.
Posted on: January 9th, 2012 by Smart on Crime
This is section two of the Bill C-10 position released by the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council (WRCPC). You can read section one here and the introduction here. Over the next week we will post one position paper section each day for discussion and dialogue. Our position paper was sent to all Members of the Senate as well as our local Members of Parliament in December 2011.
C-10, once enacted, will lead to higher incarceration of disadvantaged populations such as people growing up and living in poverty, those with addiction and mental health issues, and Aboriginal peoples. These populations are at higher risk of being affected by multiple root causes of crime and are already overrepresented in the current justice system. C-10 tips the balance between retribution/restitution and prevention such that this situation is likely to worsen.
As far back as in 1993 the federal government appointed a commission to investigate how to deal with the rising costs of crime. The recommendation of the commission chaired by Dr. Bob Horner (MP) was that “all levels of government are responsible for crime and they must work together to prevent its occurrence”. Since that time many municipalities have worked tirelessly across the country to augment the efforts of federal and provincial governments with crime prevention through social development. They have often done so on severely limited resources and yet show significant positive outcomes.
Increases in incarceration will lead to increases in spending and those inevitably will impact the federal and provincial governments’ capacities to advance new and support existing prevention strategies. Prevention may well be left to local communities and municipalities who are already struggling to meet multiple quality of life issues.
What do you think? Does C-10 signal the end of the Canadian Government’s commitment to crime prevention through social development?
You can download the full position paper here and be sure to visit the Smart on Crime blog each day over the next week to participate in the discussion on the remaining sections of the position paper.
Posted on: January 6th, 2012 by Smart on Crime
This is section one of the Bill C-10 position released by the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council (WRCPC). Over the next week we will post one position paper section each day for discussion and dialogue. Our position paper was sent to all Members of the Senate as well as our local Members of Parliament in December 2011.
The reactions to C-10, including those presented to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST), have been nothing short of overwhelming. Based on a review of these reactions and a vibrant community dialogue within our community we respectfully posed the following questions about C-10 as part of our position paper:
Does C-10 lead us away from good common sense?
By failing to look at crime as an issue that is broader than the crime itself, C-10 narrows the spectrum of thinking and action to mostly moral considerations which are inevitably volatile to subjective judgments. The Canadian public is intelligent! Canadian laws should match our collective ability to understand the complexities of problems. And crime is a complex problem. Taxpayers should not be asked to pay for a strategy that defies good common sense. C-10 is based on little, if any, evidence with regards to tangible benefits, least of all benefits for victims of crime that deserve our compassion and commitment to change.
Nobody knows this better than our neighbors to the South. The United States has more than 30 years of experience pursuing a similar strategy that increased incarceration rates 600% over this period (with an equivalent increase in cost). By now 25% percent of the world’s prison population is housed in the United States.
Will Canada be on a course to match or beat that record with no substantial benefit to communities?
The U.S. has the highest documented rate of incarceration in the Western world, and yet 60% of Americans feel less safe in their own neighborhoods than they did a year ago. Canadians on the other hand report feeling safer than they did one year ago. The imbalance between intent and outcome in the US situation comes at a staggering cost of $68 billion every year, not including the loss in productivity. And yet, for all the money spent, there has been no reduction in crime that can be attributed to the higher rates in incarceration.
Nor is the recidivism rate lower. In fact, mandatory minimum sentences reduce prisoners’ incentives for good behaviour, including participation in counseling for substance abuse, domestic violence issues, etc. — and this in turn increases our overall vulnerabilities to crime upon their release. The Bureau of U.S. Justice Statistics states that half of the prisoners released in any one year in the US are expected to be back in prison within three years.
Additionally, three-quarters of new admissions to state prisons are for non-violent crimes, with the single greatest cause of prison population growth in the U.S. attributable to people incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses. WRCPC submitted its concerns about mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences as proposed in C-15 to the Senate in July 2009.
Many Americans are urging Canadians not to repeat their mistakes, including Republican governors and state legislators in such states as Texas, South Carolina, and Ohio which are now repealing mandatory minimum sentences, increasing community supervision, and funding drug treatment because it is seen as a better mechanism for improving public safety and reducing taxpayers’ costs.
If passed, C-10 will take Canadian justice policies in a direction that defies good common sense not only based on research but also based on experiences in the US and elsewhere.
Legislation has to be examined on its merits not sentiments.
Regrettably, C-10 puts us on a course of more crime, less justice, less safety, less protection for the victims, and less protection for society overall at a greater cost than we currently have or are likely to be able to afford in the future.
What do you think? Does Bill C-10 lead us away from good common sense?
You can download the full position paper here and be sure to visit the Smart on Crime blog each day over the next week to participate in the discussion on the remaining sections of the position paper.
Posted on: January 5th, 2012 by Smart on Crime
Bill C-10. The Safe Streets and Communities Act. Proposed crime legislation that has prompted discussion, dialogue and deliberation around the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council (WRCPC) table and within the community like never before. Based on input from meetings, phone calls, emails, media scans, and social media, WRCPC presents a position paper that outlines our review of and reactions to Bill C-10, our understanding of the evidence base, and our recommendations.
Over the next 5 days, we will post daily, a section of the position paper. Since Bill C10 was introduced in the House of Commons in September 2011, WRCPC members, staff and the community have been engaged in a process to better understand the legislation itself, the related evidence base, and the potential impacts of the proposed changes. And we want to hear your feedback about what we’ve said.
By way of a summary we recommend:
- That the Omnibus Bill C-10 be disaggregated and reviewed bill by bill because of the vastly divergent nature of the proposed legislation
- That all mandatory minimum sentences be evaluated in light of evidence and expenses. Given the current economic times and the potential for cost to be downloaded, directly or indirectly, to already financially stretched provincial and local governments, a common sense approach to any allocation of limited resources is needed
- That the Government of Canada be asked to balance any investment in correction and enforcement with strategic investments in prevention, and that specifically the Government of Canada implement a National Crime Reduction Board with the mandate to advance social development efforts that have a proven track record in preventing and reducing crime, victimization and fear of crime. The role of this Crime Reduction Board would be to augment changes in legislation, enforcement and corrections with prevention
How did we get here?
The Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council (WRCPC) has worked in partnership with many community organizations, all orders of government, grassroots groups and individuals to prevent crime, victimization and fear of crime since its inception in 1993. Efforts to enhance public safety and security are highly valued by us. Our mandate is to support and engage in activities of social and community development that can positively impact the roots of crime.
In this role the Council closely monitors the impact of legislation and policies at all orders of government on the safety and security of people living, working and growing up in our community. To accomplish this complex task we pay close attention to research, conduct independent and community-based research, and combine this knowledge with the wisdom and experiences of multiple disciplines in the design of evidence-based prevention and intervention strategies.
The position paper on Bill C-10 must be seen in this light.
WRCPC’s position paper was sent to all Members of the Senate as well as our local Members of Parliament in December 2011.
You can download the full position paper here and be sure to visit the Smart on Crime blog each day over the next week to participate in the discussion – we absolutely want to hear what you have to say.
