Listening to our ‘better angels’
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.