Posts Tagged ‘tough on crime’
Posted on: January 24th, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
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.
Posted on: January 19th, 2012 by Smart on Crime
Thank you to everyone for reading, sharing and commenting on our previous 5 posts outlining the position of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council with respect to the Omnibus Crime Bill (C-10), the Safe Streets and Communities Act. One of the most common questions we received was, “So… what happens now? Has the Bill fully passed? How soon could this all start happening?”
People lamented not paying more attention in high school Civics class!
Here’s what we know.
The Safe Streets and Communities Act was passed in the House of Commons on December 5, 2011. Bill C-10 passed first and second reading in the Senate by December 16, 2011. It was then referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, where it rests until Members return to the Senate on January 31, 2012. It is expected to remain with this Senate committee for several weeks in early February and then return to the Senate for a third and final vote expected around mid-February. It is expected to pass. After that, it becomes legal reality.
We’ve also been following some of the speeches and discussion regarding Bill C-10, every word of which can be found online via the parliamentary website.
If you want to read what has been said by individual Members of Parliament about Bill C-10 in the House of Commons, the open data website, openparliament.ca, provides a quick source, along with a full record of the votes. We also took a look at the presentations made by witnesses (delegations) before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to gauge the level of support or opposition for Bill C-10.
Every justice based, crime prevention-oriented organization and community across Canada, whether in support or opposition to Bill C-10, will be waiting to see how the next steps play out. Bill C-10 could change the face of the Canadian justice system as we know it and we will all be affected, directly or indirectly, in some way.
So, now we wait….
Special thanks to Olivia Boyington (University of Waterloo) and Kayla Follet (Wilfrid Laurier University, Lyle S. Hallman School of Social Work) for preparing the summary of presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Posted on: January 12th, 2012 by Smart on Crime
Of course! Who wouldn’t support a greater voice for victims? Who wouldn’t agree that internet sexual exploitation of children must be stopped? Who wouldn’t want to send the message that one crime is one crime too many?
WRCPC wishes for and works for safer streets and communities and we do so alongside many other municipalities. But we are deeply troubled by the wholesale nature of the proposed legislation whereby Canadians need to accept the bad with the good. The government has a mandate to invest in the prevention of crime and to bring justice. C-10 as an omnibus bill simply cannot accomplish that.
We therefore ask that the Senate of Canada do due diligence and engage in sober second thought and review C-‐10 bill by bill, step by step as the only reasonable review to deal with the complexity of the legislation at hand. We also ask that prevention be taken seriously during this review. Prevention has worked, continues to work and stands a better chance of delivering safe streets and communities than C-10 in its current form can.
We went to hear from you. What do you think about the potential for Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act?
This is the last section of the position paper from the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council. Earlier sections of the position paper are available here on the Smart on Crime blog:
Posted on: January 11th, 2012 by Smart on Crime
It costs anywhere from $70,000 to over $130,000 annually to house one person in a correctional facility. Many of these inmates have a history of low educational and employment achievements, learning disabilities, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder issues, significant mental health and addiction challenges or other mitigating factors that may have contributed to their actions. These conditions do not excuse their actions but it helps us to understand them with a view to prevention. While in the past these considerations were part of the application of the law for the purpose of rehabilitation (a key correctional mandate), providing only for aggravating circumstances in mandatory minimum sentences decontextualizes crime. This approach will without doubt create a sizeable group of prisoners with little to no chance of succeeding in society upon their release. Mandatory minimum sentences make the offender, his or her context, personality, upbringing, intellect, morality or addiction irrelevant. They fail to take into account ongoing treatment needs for addictions or mental health issues or developmental delays. Minimum sentences also adversely affect the family the perpetrator leaves behind, particularly if there are children in continued need of support. This increases the risks for children whose parents are incarcerated, extends the cycle of victimization and extends the root conditions that lead to crime to the next generation. Simply stated, the human and financial costs of pro-social measures will always be substantially lower than costs of increased incarceration. Downloading a vast share of these costs to provincial governments, that are already financially stressed, will significantly hinder our collective ability to fund and advance rehabilitation efforts.
This is section four 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:
Tomorrow we will post the fifth and final section of the position paper.
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 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.
