Being Tough on Crime: What are we pretending not to know?
Being tough on crime often means talking about keeping criminals off the street, protecting the rights of victims and deterring offenders from either offending in the first place, or re-offending upon release. All of these things, however laudable, sound great on talk radio. In my very unscientific poll listening to a recent local talk radio program where the host interviewed the Honourable Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of Canada about toughening the Safe Streets and Communities Act (Bill C-10) about 90% of the callers supported this tough stance that would result in more offenders going to prison. Now, these are serious offenders, not joy-riders or B+E specialists. These are the people found guilty of violent offences. Tough to argue against that. But, have these callers thought about where we are sending these offenders and at what cost, or do they give much thought at all to prison, beyond it being the destination for bad guys (and girls in increasing numbers)?
It might serve all of us well, but certainly our politicians, to read the Annual Report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator for 2011-12. In this report, Howard Sapers makes the argument that,
“Canadians should be interested in who is ending up behind bars. Questions about whom we incarcerate and for how long and why are important public policy issues…Visible minorities, Aboriginal people and women are entering federal penitentiaries in greater numbers than ever before. Twenty-one percent of the inmate population is of Aboriginal descent and 9% of inmates are Black Canadians. In the last five years, the number of federally incarcerated women has increased by about 40% while the number of Aboriginal women has increased by over 80% in the last decade. In fact, if not for these sub-groups, the offender population growth rate would have flat-lined some years ago.”
Think about that for a moment. Does this not seem out of whack to you? How often have we heard our politicians or talk show hosts calling attention to these stats? Not very, at least in my memory. How long can we keep sweeping this issue under the proverbial rug before we need an SUV to climb over it? Why is this not on the national radar?
Mr. Sapers goes even further to paint a picture of today’s inmate:
“More offenders are admitted to federal penitentiaries more addicted and more mentally ill that ever before. 36% have been identified at admissions as requiring some form of psychiatric care of psychological follow-up. 63% of offenders report using either alcohol or drugs on the day of their current offence…These needs often run ahead of the system’s capacity to meet them.”
Given this, would it not make sense for the government to invest some of the money it is using after the fact to house these people to invest at the front end in some form of proactive therapy that can address alcohol and substance abuse issues as these are often linked to mental health problems? We know that it currently costs the government (in reality you and me, the taxpayer) about $98,000 to incarcerate one male (female prisoners are much more expensive to house, in fact about twice the cost) for one year in a medium security federal prison. By the way, these figures come from Public Safety Canada. I am not making them up. If that money were invested in mental health and addictions counselling (and it wouldn’t even cost near that amount) for a person when symptoms first arise, it would save exponential amounts of money after the fact in costs of incarceration. This isn’t bleeding heart liberalism. It’s simple mathematics. You should know that there is a range of costs for persons incarcerated that is dependent on whether or not they are in a federal or provincial institute, whether they are male or female and the level of security and so on. I think there are more options out there that are less expensive and arguably more effective.
Look for example at InREACH, the anti-gang project running in Waterloo Region. In 2009, the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council received nearly $3.8 million from the National Crime Prevention Centre (Canada) for a 45 month time period to create and implement a collaborative street gang prevention project that involved a collaboration among various community agency partners. You can read about the initiative yourself so I won’t take you through all it offers in terms of its programs like addictions counselling, mental health supports, job skills training, community mobilization and so on. Visit the site though. You will be impressed.
In a recent monitoring report of the project prepared by Karen Hayward, she notes that 210 youth have been referred to the program since 2010. If, and it’s a very big if, all of these youth would have gone on to commit crimes which would land them in a medium security federal penitentiary the cost to the taxpayer would be $20,580,000. Okay, that’s a stretch. It depends on lots of factors so I am asking you to give me some leeway here. So, let’s say only a quarter of these youth could be diverted successfully. The cost is still $5,145,000. Oh, by the way, this is per year. So, if for example we say that the program diverted 25% of these youth from a federal penitentiary over three years, at a program investment of roughly $3 million and without it, the government (again, you and me) would be on the hook for $15,435,000 – does it not look cost effective? And, interestingly enough, inREACH is scrambling for funding since the money is running out. It begs the question as to why, when simple economics tells us it makes more sense to invest upfront dollars that will save the taxpayer huge amounts later on. I know there are a lot of suppositions in my example that may fail to take various factors into consideration, but the message is still clear: pay now or pay a lot more later.
Mr. Sapers helps make my argument. “Expenditures on federal corrections totalled almost $2.5 billion in 2010-11, which represents a 43.9% increase since 2005-06.” Have we seen the same percentage increase going to mental health and addictions support? Well, it appears not. According to the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the federal government has cut mental health services at Correctional Services Canada including three doctors, 28 nurses, six psychologists, three social workers and two occupational therapists. These numbers don’t include the 18 nurses and five psychologists affected by the closure of Kingston Penitentiary who will lose their jobs.
When one considers, as Mr. Sapers’ report notes, that 4 of 5 offenders have substance abuse problems, 50% of federally incarcerated women report a history of self-harm, over half identify a current or previous addiction to drugs, 85% report a history of physical abuse and 68% experienced sexual abuse at some point in their lives, any cuts to mental health supports seem short-sighted. And I am not even touching on the story of Ashley Smith, as an example of what can happen to a person with mental health needs in our prison system.
As much as I think many callers to talk shows debating the tough on crime agenda reasonably want to protect victims, it might be time for them to think about what happens after the cell door slams. After all, at some point these people are coming out and will be standing in line with us at Tim Hortons or riding the bus with us. From a strictly selfish point of view, do we want them to come out healthier, more able to handle stress and addictive tendencies, more compassionate and remorseful, or just angrier and more damaged?
Is it time to stop pretending prison is our best option? What are we pretending not to know?
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 Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council.