Posts Tagged ‘crime prevention’
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.
Posted on: December 21st, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Last year, I wrote about Judge Jimmie Edwards and the creative, down-to-earth work he does to reach out and catch the most vulnerable youth falling through the system in St. Louis, Missouri. He started his own school, run by his youth court, and gives youth another chance to get life back on track, and earn a high school diploma.
And it seems to be working.
Judge Edwards subscribes to the ‘smart on crime’ philosophy of crime prevention that we love and know so well here at the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council: intervene early, work at the root causes, and work to increase the protective factors. In this case, Judge Edwards is able to intervene early when a youth first sets foot in his court. He is able to identify underlying issues that have brought this youth to where they are now (family dysfunction, drug and/or alcohol use, lack of supervision, low school achievement or dropout… the list goes on). It would be easy for Judge Edwards to hand out a sentence of jail time or community service – but he sees a full 27% – 30% return rate of youth back to his court. It got him to thinking about how they could do things differently in St. Louis that would reduce & prevent crime among youth, and at the same time, improve longer term opportunities for success.
Education became Judge Edwards’ focus. The Innovation Concept Academy is the only school of its kind in the United States. After opening its doors in 2009, it has recently seen it’s first graduation ceremony for eleven students. Two of those students have gone on to college. That’s eleven students who might not have made it otherwise.
By Judge Edwards own measure, he would call the school successful.
“If we save one, I’m hopeful. If we save two, it’s a blessing”.
