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.
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.
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.
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”.
Posted on: December 14th, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
For awhile, this past weekend, I thought I was in a parallel universe. Something wasn’t making sense. I was reading an article in The Record about the drug treatment court that was launched several months ago to work with those whose addictions have led them to commit crimes. The article was about graduation day for the first group of offenders who began the alternative program back in February 2011. Dianne Wood from The Record wrote a ‘good news’ story celebrating not only the work of the offenders in turning their lives around, but also the work done by the Crown, police, social workers and various support agencies. Judge Colin Westman, who operates the court with crown prosecutors Kathleen Nolan and Lynette Fritzley had this to say, “This should be a statement to the justice system. There are ways other than punishment to help (people) turn their lives around. It’s more frequently done with love than punishment.” I had to read that more than once to ensure I hadn’t missed something.
As I read his words and other laudatory comments by the Crown attorneys I couldn’t help think about Bill C-10. This innovative drug court approach, according to Wood, receives no financial support from the federal government, unlike six other drug courts operating in Canada. Their approach, combining respect and support for the offender, while not excusing the crime nor forgoing punishment, seems to be in stark contrast to the “tough on crime” stance evident in the new Bill C-10 legislation. Their approach starts with the offender, putting the crime in the context of their lives, their struggles with addiction and their hopes and plans to turn things around. In doing so it has a better chance of matching the offender’s addiction issues with the support networks that will allow them the opportunity to get clean and stay clean. Will all succeed? No, according to one of the Crowns who helped develop the program. But, considering the cost of incarceration (approximately $75,000 annually) and the fact that it pulls people from families, homes, jobs and education, one wonders why this approach wouldn’t be the norm. Particularly at a time when we are seeing overcrowding at our local women’s prison and will no doubt see more of it as a result of C-10.
Now, there are some caveats. As Wood tells us, “the court won’t take offenders charged with violent crimes. It also won’t accept drug dealers who traffic for profit, although it will consider those who traffic to support their personal habit.” Offenders in the program are regularly monitored and must agree to live within certain conditions set by the court. Not everyone succeeds though there appears to be consensus that rehabilitation is less expensive than punishment and has a better chance of reaching the offender.
Given all of this, can you see why I am confused? With all of the negative press (and it sure seems to outweigh the positive) around C-10, why would the government want to continue with mandatory minimum sentences and other troubling features of their legislation? Is it strictly to honour their promise of getting tough on crime with legislation within the first 100 days of their mandate? Do they really think this will work? From what I can see in the program described by Woods in her article, it appears the offenders appreciated the respect shown to them and the trust placed in them to make positive changes. What’s your experience been?
I’ve found there is much more incentive to take control of your life when people believe in your ability to do just that. Respect for the individual and his or her unique circumstance is the key. Several years ago I had the privilege to work with Fr. Mike Cundari when he was the principal of the former St. Jerome’s High School. His actions and words demonstrated respect for all. I marvelled at his ability to reach even the most difficult student. As I watched and learned I saw that respecting each person and ensuring their dignity remained intact in any disciplinary action was the key to his success. That and his enormous religious faith. But faith aside, his approach is reminiscent of that shown by those who initiated the drug treatment court. Hundreds, if not thousands of young men who attended this all-boys school in Kitchener will tell you this approach helped them be the best they could be. In the years to come, if the government doesn’t kill this innovative, smart on crime court, the same will no doubt be said of it.
Maybe it’s a good time to remember the words of Jack Layton:
Love is better than anger.
Hope is better than fear.
Optimism is better than despair.
So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic.
And we will change the world.
I’m interested in hearing your thoughts and comments on this. Please add them below.
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: December 7th, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Just to be upfront, I am a small ‘l’ liberal on some issues and a small ‘c’ conservative with others, a parent, a middle child with a weakness for mystery novels, Clint Eastwood movies and lots of other descriptors that aren’t that unique. I may be in the minority in society but am in the majority of those who vote. None of this is really important but it may help explain why I am struggling with the issue of youth crime after reading a series in The Star called “The Kids of 311 Jarvis”, the site of Toronto’s Youth Court. It’s probably not too dissimilar from those in other major cities. It might not be that much different from the Youth Court in Waterloo Region. More on that later.
The Star series follows a number of cases through the Youth Court, a difficult step they contend, because of the secrecy behind the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This secrecy is necessary to protect young offenders from being labelled and gives them a second (or third) chance at making positive changes in their lives outside the scrutiny of the public. But, how easy is it to make these changes when saddled by poverty, low levels of educational achievement, substance abuse, mental health issues and the many other barriers they face?
The collective story of the youth in conflict with the law portrayed in the series is horrific and, while this doesn’t justify their crimes, it goes a long way to understanding them. It also puts a face on their victims and the difficult journey to wholeness they face. Some readers might argue that “The Safe Streets and Communities Act” is a perfect remedy as it gives more voice to victims, adds more “aggravating” factors for judges to consider and restricts the ability of judges to consider attempts of some young people see the positive change it envisions.
In conversation with a youth who has been through our local Youth Court I learned things aren’t always what they seem. Dirty cells, being manacled to strangers for transfer to and from court, all freedoms taken away, subjected to strip searches, bad food, connections to families broken is the norm. Deprivations like these might seem justified, and in the minds of some, not go far enough in exacting punishment for the crime. Did this deter the young person from committing the crime? No.
Okay, would the imposition of the heavier sentences and further custodial restrictions act as a deterrent? Isn’t general deterrence a goal of this ‘tough on crime’ approach? As it turns out from conversation with this youth, those tougher sentences wouldn’t have worked either.
From my experience, few of us take the time to analyze consequences before we act impulsively. Think about times in your own life when you made an unwise comment, bought another pair of pants (hey, they were on sale) or rushed through an orange light just on impulse. Maybe you avoided consequences, maybe you didn’t. No, what worked for this youth was the support of family, some new friends, courage and newfound wisdom borne from experience. That, and the help of a local program known as inREACH.
inREACH provides support to potential or current gang members and other youth who either have, or have to potential to, commit crime. inREACH provides support with employment, education, housing, addictions, probation orders or other barriers to success. The success of inREACH is linked to its collaborative partnerships with social agencies, police, crown, probation and parole services in addition to financial support from all levels of government. Programs like this can get to youth before they fall too far into the corrections net. Various provisions of the “Safe Streets and Communities Act” will make their task of diverting youth much more challenging.
All of which brings me to my dilemma. While my heart aches for the terrible lives these youth have to deal with, I also want the victims to know some sense of justice and closure. It’s not either-or, but both-and. I think this is where the Government’s legislation and approach has failed us. It doesn’t seek the balance a person like me wants to see in our elected government. but, if I’m right in surmising that people like me make up the majority of voters, we clearly differ on how we approach this issue come election time. Since we elected a party known to be fiscally and socially conservative, gave them a majority allowing them to reshape our country for the next several years, we shouldn’t be surprised changes to the Criminal Code and Long Gun Registry will come into effect. The added cost of increasing incarceration and the abolition of the registry (despite the fact that police use it regularly for their own safety) make one wonder how fiscally conservative the current Government truly is. No argument about their social conservatism. That is clear from their actions. Adding millions of dollars to federal and provincial budgets through the after-effects of “The Safe Streets and Communities Act”, on the cusp of another recession, makes one wonder what their personal checking accounts must look like each month. I thought conservatives liked smaller budgets and less government intervention in society. In the words of Republican presidential candidate Governor Rick Perry… “oops”.
Whether we count ourselves as liberal or conservative in our values and voting patterns we still need to face the fact that ‘the kids of 311 Jarvis’ will always be with us unless we work to eradicate the fundamental causes of crime. Ultimately that will create fewer victims, lower the costs associated with crime and build a more harmonious society. Canada was founded on the notion of “peace, order and good government”. How we get there will be debated for years but it’s a good starting point for a conversation.
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: November 29th, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Who could turn down an invitation to an event called “Cookies and Crime Prevention”…… ? Community events often use the lure of food and edible goodies to draw out attendees. I fell for that trap when I was asked to be a guest speaker for the Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association (VPNA) AGM last week! That’s really only half the truth….
In fact, I’ve been involved with members of the VPNA for some time now in my role as Community Engagement Coordinator with the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council. I could give you a long paragraph about the work we’ve been doing with residents in the neighbourhood. But that’s not nearly as interesting as hearing the story as told by of the neighbours herself.
Aimee makes the point so perfectly in her story. We all have a role to play in creating stronger neighbourhoods. Every little part makes a difference and together we are stronger. We. Can. Make. Change.
And sharing cookies doesn’t hurt either.
Additional stories about Cookies and Crime Prevention from The Record:
It’s a bird, it’s a plane…. no, wait… it’s Say Hi Gal and Say Hi Guy! In recognition of Crime Prevention Week across Ontario, Waterloo Region will be visited by these caped crime prevention crusaders to remind us that we all have a role to play in crime prevention and it can start with an act as simple as saying Hi!.
We know that a connected community is a safer and one small way of building connection is by simply saying Hi to a neighbour, someone you see everyday on your walk to work or getting a coffee, a complete stranger on the bus or in the grocery store. Say Hi Gal and Say Hi Guy are here to remind us of how its done! It doesn’t cost a thing, it doesn’t take long, and the the rewards are worth it.
Word is there was already a reported and recorded sighting of Say Hi Gal at the Woolwich Township Council on Monday evening! Watch out for this masked marvel on the streets of Waterloo Region this week, and don’t be shy, just say Hi!
Say Hi Gal
Say Hi Guys
Say Hi – Cape Central
Say Hi Gal and Say Hi Guy are an extension of the very successful school based Say Hi campaign that addresses inclusion, student engagement, diversity and understanding. To learn more about the Say Hi program visit www.sayhi.ca.
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.”
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.
Everybody loves an infographic! They are so helpful in making a point that words on paper just can’t do. As various delegations and experts appeared before the House of Commons during the debate on the omnibus crime bill, we were reminded of this great infographic from The Church Council on Justice & Corrections.
