Posts Tagged ‘policy’
Posted on: November 2nd, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
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.
Posted on: October 13th, 2011 by Smart on Crime
Fulfilling an election promise, the Government of Canada recently introduced the “Safe Streets and Communities Act” or Bill C-10. If passed, Bill C-10 would significantly amend the Canadian Criminal Code and related legislation. C-10 is an omnibus bill that includes nine pieces of proposed legislation covering changes from mandatory minimum sentences to tougher penalties for selected crimes. The government has promised to pass this Bill in the first 100 days of Parliament.
What’s the rush?
The government is well aware a 30-year obsession with “law and order” in the United States has been politically popular but has actually failed to reduce crime. Facts are facts and the failure of the US “tough on crime” approach (among others) is well documented. Unfortunately, Canadians are debating crime more than the weather these days, blissfully unaware of how much they will pay to implement a law whose major components have been proven failures in other lands.
From a crime prevention perspective such public interest in building safer communities is always a positive development. Everyone has a role to play and we can’t and shouldn’t leave the work up to any one order of government and its institutions. It’s a teachable moment.
That’s why the time frame of 100 days to discuss a major overhaul of the Canadian justice system is completely inadequate. Of course, everyone wants “safe streets and communities”, but in a classic American move this Bill lumps in everything from sexual abuse of children to possession of marijuana. If you disagree with the pot provision God help you because then you must also be “soft’ on sexual abuse of kids. The populist needs of a government should not stop Canadians from assessing how each specific piece of legislation tossed into this soup will affect the balance between prevention, rehabilitation, restitution and denunciation.
Some of the measures (such as Serious Time for Serious Crime Bill and the Abolition of Early Parole Act) will increase the number of inmates in an already over-crowded prison system from 13,000 to more than 17,000. Such huge increases come with huge costs. Adding more than 4,000 more inmates will mean spending an additional $1.8 billion over five years. And that is the just the federal cost. The provinces already pay to incarcerate more than 20,000 inmates at the current status. During a time of vast fiscal restraint such needless pressure on taxpayers to solve a problem that doesn’t exist is excessive and irresponsible.
In the end, the main question must be whether C-10 will in fact accomplish what the government says it will do: increase public safety. Unfortunately the answer is a resounding NO. Substantial research shows that “tough on crime” strategies have neither reduced crime nor assisted victims. And all of this is happening at a time when crime has been at its lowest in decades across the country.
So, let’s recap: during one of the lowest crime rates in history and in the midst of a crippling recession where people are losing jobs in droves the federal government is implementing a scheme that has failed elsewhere at a cost that will more than double Canada’s current public safety budgets.
This is not OK, and Canadians deserve a full and proper debate on each and every component of the omnibus bill.
Author: John Shewchuk, Chair, Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Posted on: September 27th, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
With a zang and a zing
The bells of parliament did ring
To signal the new season
Of parliamentary reason
The message was clear
To all who could hear
“Changes in law are coming this fall
Our omnibus is big, our orders are tall
We’ll do what we said, we have the right and the votes,
The cost and the outcomes…. We’ll get to that footnote”
“We’ve got plans for these thugs, these thugs and their drugs
We’ve got a majority – no time for soft hugs
If you can’t do the time
Then don’t do the crime
Please, don’t waste our citizens’ dime
With all your prime time crime”
It’s a puzzle, yes, a puzzle, said the people
Who gathered in places with town halls & tall steeples
And online in real time, they talked about crime
About tougher and smarter, ways to spend dimes
The people said, I don’t understand, you see
Why the big rush for an omnibus accompli?
The people said, I find it so curious
These facts and these claims, all looking so spurious
Curious why…
A fortune is spent for prison invention
When just scraps are left in the name of prevention
Curious that…
There is not time for ‘wasting’ on research and cost
Really? The moment must be seized before the moment is lost?
Curious why…
Evidence, history, stats experts, unheeded
All of whom know that a smart way is needed
Curious why…
We can’t learn from the change that now sweeps the US
Where 30 years of ‘law and order’ caused such a mess
With crime rates at the lowest in history
The toughness of Bill C-10, well, it’s a bit of a mystery
The people, they called and they wrote
They said, hey, we don’t need this omniboat
No omniboat, no omnibus
And we’re prepared to cause a big fuss
They said to the Bill, this is just NOT for us
Where is the prevention in your big omnibus?
We won’t stand by to see budgets flagrantly tossed
As a tough brand of justice is royally embossed
Let’s get smart, smart on crime, said the people
Who all got busy in places with town halls and tall steeples
Working smarter on crime
Seems more worth our time
And easier on the citizens’ dime
So, let’s build a movement, a movement for change
Let’s get creative, a few things to rearrange
We’ve got plans too, for the way things get done
This community is smarter, second to none
Here we go, watch us go
Collaborate
Evaluate
Anticipate
Animate
Invigorate
Validate
Captivate
Authenticate
Participate
Negotiate
Coordinate
Concentrate
Elaborate
Generate
Recreate
Advocate
Integrate
Cultivate
Accentuate
The smarter way to go
Posted on: September 15th, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Elections are expected in seven Canadian provinces and territories this fall, including Ontario, where our Crime Prevention Council is located. Election periods always gain a great deal of media attention – the campaign stops, the announcements, the debates, the photo-ops….. But how do you know what a candidate really thinks on a particular issue? And how do you get engaged to ask the questions that are relevant to you? How do you know what questions to ask? What do you do when an issue important to you is not reflected in a candidate’s agenda?
Several community based agencies and provincial organizations are already steps ahead on this election thing and encourage people to take action using a variety of guides and kits created for just this purpose. Since everything we write about in this blog is related to crime prevention and smart on crime approaches to reducing crime, we’ve put together a list of election guides from organizations that work on root cause issues of crime.
If you’re passionate about an issue in your community, contact the associated organization or agency to find out if they have any prepared information that you can use to inform yourself AND inform others.
Elections are just one of our civic opportunities to engage and influence the decision makers of the day. What will you do to make your voice heard?
Posted on: August 12th, 2011 by Smart on Crime
My heart goes out to the people of London and other cities in England. Having lived there from 1979 to 1984, England remains one of those countries for which I have a personal soft spot. Many of my friends remain there, I recently visited London, and I still have a good sense of its culture and its people. Naturally I have been following the tragic events of rioting that have unfolded within a very short time and the immense impact it has had on those victimized, but also those who are hopelessly watching as they see a country formerly mostly safe and secure slip into fear. Police and the justice systems are clearly overburdened by the task at hand, stories of individuals supporting them best as they can rain in daily along with stories of devastation.
Against this backdrop, I was keen to read Prime Minister David Cameron’s speech to parliament. When a country is in crisis, what leaders do and say is critical for setting a tone for the future and for aiding understanding. Safety is an essential mandate of all orders of government. When insecurity sets in, people look for calm to be restored, reason to prevail and explanations to make sense. Unfortunately Mr. Cameron’s analysis is too confused to accomplish that. One reason for the confusion may be the lack of evidence for what he sees as the roots of the problem.
Yes, England had not seen this type of rioting in decades. But why have we not learned from the last time?
It is hard to look deeper. Mostly, we humans prefer to stick with answers that comfort us and sustain our world view. Simple is more palatable than complex. One year ahead of the summer Olympics it is also more opportune to condemn the criminality of a few than to ask the public to engage in a dialogue about broader social issues. In Mr Cameron’s analysis, that would be a waste because there is no “justifiable causal link” when it comes to crime.
The opportunities contained in any situation where we are struggle to react let alone think of how to prevent such issues in the future are immense. We owe it to future generations to not wait for another few decades to pass and then return to the same old answers that answered nothing in the past.
But there is more to the speech than at first meets the eye. It is clearly a statement that says: nothing is broken in our society, just a few people within it. And yet Mr. Cameron then goes on to propose measures that will indeed impact society as a whole. He proposes to extend the punishments beyond the courts to other services where those who are caught for rioting may well be cut off from social assistance and forced to leave their social housing. While that might satisfy the need for an immediate emotional release, (a “Take THAT” variety), it can only serve to make those who act in anger more disengaged and even angrier. In fact, Mr. Cameron’s answers are textbook avoidance of evidence. In his world view criminality has no connection to social and other conditions. Criminality is about “culture” and, more specifically, the culture of families that raise their young as if there were only rights and no responsibilities. This culture, I can only assume, floats in an ethereal distance above the community and is unaffected by its institutions and developments. Meanwhile, in the rights debate, Mr. Cameron is prepared to put sweeping powers in place and not get tangled in the questions of “phony human rights”. Phoney!? When our response to injustice starts to undermine the very basic principles of justice such as human rights, I don’t feel reassured at all.
As for victims, there is little that is reassuring even there. Business compensation is “possible”. But there is nothing mentioned of post trauma supports and other victims services. At the end of the speech I was left confused and disappointed at the level of analysis. The only glimmer of hope I saw was in the demand for a national gang policy. But a policy is a long way of from a national action plan that can get back to the business of being tough on causes.
Crime prevention practitioners the world over have frequently looked at England for promising practices. Now what?
Author: Christiane Sadeler
Christiane is the Executive Direcotr of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council and writes occasional commentary on current events for the Smart on Crime blog.
