Fighting crime with a stopwatch and a pencil

I read with some dismay that the parliamentary committee created to hear submissions on the Government of Canada’s omnibus crime bill, often referred to as C-10, allowed only five minutes per submission. Five minutes to outline the deep and myriad concerns with this bill. Your time would be up shortly after the introductions. And this for a bill that would make significant changes not only to our criminal justice system, but to the very core of what we believe about rehabilitation, restorative justice and mitigating circumstances. All at an increased cost for taxpayers worried about another recession, led by a government perceived to be fiscally conservative.

While most public institutions like hospitals and schools are required to be more accountable by using the best available research to make responsible decisions, we appear to be seeing a government blind to the experience of other jurisdictions who used a ‘tough on crime’ approach. Even the United States, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world, is increasingly moving to alternative measures in diverting perpetrators from jails. And not necessarily because it reduces recidivism, but because it is simply less expensive to reduce jail time in favour of alternate approaches.

While we all want safer communities, how we get there is a matter of some dispute. Naturally with any proposed legislation there are supporters and challengers. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, not surprisingly, supports the legislation for its focus on victims while the Canadian Bar Association had this to say:

“In our view, the initiatives in Bill C-10 go in a contrary direction. They adopt a punitive approach to criminal behavior, rather than one concentrated on how to prevent that behavior in the first place, or rehabilitate those who do offend. As most offenders will one day return to their communities, we know that prevention and rehabilitation are most likely to contribute to public safety. The proposed initiatives also move Canada along a road that has clearly failed in other countries. Rather than replicate that failure, at enormous public expense, we might instead learn from those countries’ experience.”

You can read the full submission here.

The Bar Association exposes serious flaws in the proposed legislation, namely that it does not address the root causes of crime in any proactive way. It does not deal effectively with poverty, addiction, low levels of educational achievement, mental health, trauma or other factors that will still be there when the offender is eventually released. And all, in their words, “at enormous public expense”.  It seems the Government does not know the difference between ‘spending’ and ‘investment’.

It makes one wonder who wrote the various pieces of legislation that make up Bill C-10. Are they using all the information available to them in crafting the bill? Do they truly understand the impact on correctional facilities and families if this moves forward in its present form? Are they truly consulting widely and listening fully to the concerns raised by citizens and organizations with experience, expertise and understanding about crime?

I don’t think so. It reminds me of a quote from former president Dwight Eisenhower:

“Farming looks pretty easy when your plough is a pencil and you’re a thousand miles from a corn field.”

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.