" That, however, would be impossible. For one thing, we just don’t have space in our prisons to handle the load (or the money to fund it). And it would also often trample on the legitimate civil rights of accused individuals."
It's not impossible.
If necessary, build more, and better, prisons.
The rights of law-abiding citizens have legitimate civil rights, including the right to not be a victim of crime.
People are getting tired of hearing 'it can't be done' about why they can't be protected against crime, and on the too-easy-on-criminals bail, parole, sentencing and legal systems.
You're correct, of course, that "not enough money" is just another way of saying "lower priority". Money could be found. But it would come at a significant social (higher taxes?) and political cost - and it's unlikely we'd find politicians willing to undertake that cost.
The article's suggestions for alternatives like much more reliable electronic monitoring and house arrest mechanisms were an attempt to avoid the upheaval of such a political battle.
Notwithstanding the merit of rehabilitation (hence ‘correctional services’), prisons should be places that no one wishes to go to, never mind return to. No frills. No personal tvs but certainly a library. Mandatory work (licence plates? Mailbags? You get the picture). Situate them in Canada’s wilderness.
The pendulum has swung too far in favour of prisoners’ rights and away from victims’ rights and the community’s expectation of peace and safety.
No, I’m not a proponent of capital or corporal punishment. Just uncomfortable incarceration.
Bail is a mess in Canada and nobody knows how it really works or what the standards are. Everything is tilted in favour of the accused, starting with the presumption that every offender is entitled to bail - no matter how serious the crime (or psychotic the state of mind). That's why you see clearly mentally ill offenders commit serious crimes, get arrested and be out on the street the next day to commit more crime, get arrested, released etc. The cycle is endless and public safety is no longer a concern of the system, to the extent that it ever was.
Very interesting article! I'd love a second beat on your conclusion regarding rate of re-offence by violent criminals. It's unfortunate there isn't more data about this, but from the statistics you give:
"in the three years following a term of community supervision, 15.6 percent of offenders were convicted for new violent crimes. For offenders coming out of custodial sentences, that rate was 30.2 percent."
I'd conclude that it is less likely for convicted offenders to re-offend than to not.
And the statistics related to the high percentage of individuals serving community and custodial sentences who are re-offenders seem to imply that a high percentage of people convicted of crimes come from the pool of already-convicted offenders, but not necessarily that a high percentage of people convicted of crimes re-offend.
I'm curious if you have thoughts on this distinction, as to me, it feels like it might change how we would approach the problem, with a weaker focus on immediate incarceration of every accused individual, and instead a focus on collecting more data to understand why incarceration/reintegration into society doesn't work for the ~30% of re-offenders.
You're correct that only a minority of violent offenders re-offend after completing their terms. But I consider even 15% or 30% to be a very high rate on a *systemic* level. That means that as many as one in three released offenders will re-offend. Perhaps we should give the benefit of the doubt to each *individual* coming out of the system, but we do need to be concerned about the cohort as a whole.
The number of repeat offenses indicate that incarceration in Canada offers little if any deterrence for them. If it weren't for the increasing trend of jailing non-violent political enemies of the state and with thought crimes on the horizon, I would recommend contracting-out our prison services to Mexico to increase deterrence while likely saving money. More seriously, incarceration should only be used on violent convicts. White collar crime should earn a form of involuntary servitude to their victims in an attempt at compensation.
"The amendments…legislate a "principle of restraint" for police and courts to ensure that release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention, that bail conditions are reasonable, relevant to the offence and necessary to ensure public safety, and that sureties are imposed only when less onerous forms of release are inadequate"
A straightforward reading of this text suggests the following:
Release at the earliest opportunity is the top priority (hence why it is listed first).
That bail conditions are presumptively unreasonable, irrelevant, and unnecessary unless and until demonstrated otherwise (the default expectation is release and the burden of proof is on the court to establish that any bail condition is necessary).
That sureties are presumptively "onerous".
Yes, I think some blame can be laid squarely on the legislation for clearly communicating that release without bail conditions is the priority and default expectation and courts may do otherwise only under exceptional circumstances with a high standard of justification required.
That's true. Although it could be argued that public safety is still an absolute condition that's available for any court to apply. This would be more relevant if C-48 hadn't already weakened whatever it was that C75 was supposed to accomplish.
Still, I wouldn't mind hearing thoughts from anyone from inside the legal community.
You write, in part, "... it could be argued that public safety is still an absolute condition that's available for any court to apply ... "
Yes, you can argue that but from what we see, hear, etc. it is absolutely apparent that public safety is put behind "the rights of the accused." The attention of those deciding (i.e. judges, JP's, etc.) is the issue of that you identify where "...The amendments…legislate a "principle of restraint" for police and courts to ensure that release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention, that bail conditions are reasonable ..." over the rest of that sentence.
Now, I don't wish to see someone put in the jug when they are innocent and awaiting trial, but, your conclusion of how to deal with granting bail is - please pardon my descriptor - utopian.
"Implement improved risk assessment ..." Yup, good idea but why the Hell aren't they doing that now? Oh, they will tell you that they are.
"Improve the reliability of non-custodial measures ..." And, where will we get the judges, JP's, etc. who are willing to impose those when they have them available now but ....
"Improve parole and probation ..." Again, good idea but they will tell you that they are doing everything they can now but, the "rights" of the criminals, dollars available, yada, yada, yada
"Optimize data analytics ... Now, that sounds great but I have to believe that we will come up against "rights" of the criminals, the "lived experiences" of the various (stupid phrasing) oppressed groups, fear of stereotyping, etc., etc., etc.
In short, I fear that your wish to hear from the legal community will dwell on all the stupid stuff that the legal beagles and will not at all consider protection of the public except as a phrase to be mouthed, not meant.
Clearly, we need to dedicate more money to this area. Much more money.
And, finally, I absolutely refuse to consider our criminal arrangement to be a "justice" system as it is, instead a "legal" system. Put differently, we have ever so many laws and rules and regulations and any similarity to actual justice is simply coincidence and rarely occurs.
" That, however, would be impossible. For one thing, we just don’t have space in our prisons to handle the load (or the money to fund it). And it would also often trample on the legitimate civil rights of accused individuals."
It's not impossible.
If necessary, build more, and better, prisons.
The rights of law-abiding citizens have legitimate civil rights, including the right to not be a victim of crime.
People are getting tired of hearing 'it can't be done' about why they can't be protected against crime, and on the too-easy-on-criminals bail, parole, sentencing and legal systems.
You're correct, of course, that "not enough money" is just another way of saying "lower priority". Money could be found. But it would come at a significant social (higher taxes?) and political cost - and it's unlikely we'd find politicians willing to undertake that cost.
The article's suggestions for alternatives like much more reliable electronic monitoring and house arrest mechanisms were an attempt to avoid the upheaval of such a political battle.
Notwithstanding the merit of rehabilitation (hence ‘correctional services’), prisons should be places that no one wishes to go to, never mind return to. No frills. No personal tvs but certainly a library. Mandatory work (licence plates? Mailbags? You get the picture). Situate them in Canada’s wilderness.
The pendulum has swung too far in favour of prisoners’ rights and away from victims’ rights and the community’s expectation of peace and safety.
No, I’m not a proponent of capital or corporal punishment. Just uncomfortable incarceration.
Bail is a mess in Canada and nobody knows how it really works or what the standards are. Everything is tilted in favour of the accused, starting with the presumption that every offender is entitled to bail - no matter how serious the crime (or psychotic the state of mind). That's why you see clearly mentally ill offenders commit serious crimes, get arrested and be out on the street the next day to commit more crime, get arrested, released etc. The cycle is endless and public safety is no longer a concern of the system, to the extent that it ever was.
Very interesting article! I'd love a second beat on your conclusion regarding rate of re-offence by violent criminals. It's unfortunate there isn't more data about this, but from the statistics you give:
"in the three years following a term of community supervision, 15.6 percent of offenders were convicted for new violent crimes. For offenders coming out of custodial sentences, that rate was 30.2 percent."
I'd conclude that it is less likely for convicted offenders to re-offend than to not.
And the statistics related to the high percentage of individuals serving community and custodial sentences who are re-offenders seem to imply that a high percentage of people convicted of crimes come from the pool of already-convicted offenders, but not necessarily that a high percentage of people convicted of crimes re-offend.
I'm curious if you have thoughts on this distinction, as to me, it feels like it might change how we would approach the problem, with a weaker focus on immediate incarceration of every accused individual, and instead a focus on collecting more data to understand why incarceration/reintegration into society doesn't work for the ~30% of re-offenders.
You're correct that only a minority of violent offenders re-offend after completing their terms. But I consider even 15% or 30% to be a very high rate on a *systemic* level. That means that as many as one in three released offenders will re-offend. Perhaps we should give the benefit of the doubt to each *individual* coming out of the system, but we do need to be concerned about the cohort as a whole.
That makes sense -- thank you for the response!
The number of repeat offenses indicate that incarceration in Canada offers little if any deterrence for them. If it weren't for the increasing trend of jailing non-violent political enemies of the state and with thought crimes on the horizon, I would recommend contracting-out our prison services to Mexico to increase deterrence while likely saving money. More seriously, incarceration should only be used on violent convicts. White collar crime should earn a form of involuntary servitude to their victims in an attempt at compensation.
"The amendments…legislate a "principle of restraint" for police and courts to ensure that release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention, that bail conditions are reasonable, relevant to the offence and necessary to ensure public safety, and that sureties are imposed only when less onerous forms of release are inadequate"
A straightforward reading of this text suggests the following:
Release at the earliest opportunity is the top priority (hence why it is listed first).
That bail conditions are presumptively unreasonable, irrelevant, and unnecessary unless and until demonstrated otherwise (the default expectation is release and the burden of proof is on the court to establish that any bail condition is necessary).
That sureties are presumptively "onerous".
Yes, I think some blame can be laid squarely on the legislation for clearly communicating that release without bail conditions is the priority and default expectation and courts may do otherwise only under exceptional circumstances with a high standard of justification required.
That's true. Although it could be argued that public safety is still an absolute condition that's available for any court to apply. This would be more relevant if C-48 hadn't already weakened whatever it was that C75 was supposed to accomplish.
Still, I wouldn't mind hearing thoughts from anyone from inside the legal community.
You write, in part, "... it could be argued that public safety is still an absolute condition that's available for any court to apply ... "
Yes, you can argue that but from what we see, hear, etc. it is absolutely apparent that public safety is put behind "the rights of the accused." The attention of those deciding (i.e. judges, JP's, etc.) is the issue of that you identify where "...The amendments…legislate a "principle of restraint" for police and courts to ensure that release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention, that bail conditions are reasonable ..." over the rest of that sentence.
Now, I don't wish to see someone put in the jug when they are innocent and awaiting trial, but, your conclusion of how to deal with granting bail is - please pardon my descriptor - utopian.
"Implement improved risk assessment ..." Yup, good idea but why the Hell aren't they doing that now? Oh, they will tell you that they are.
"Improve the reliability of non-custodial measures ..." And, where will we get the judges, JP's, etc. who are willing to impose those when they have them available now but ....
"Improve parole and probation ..." Again, good idea but they will tell you that they are doing everything they can now but, the "rights" of the criminals, dollars available, yada, yada, yada
"Optimize data analytics ... Now, that sounds great but I have to believe that we will come up against "rights" of the criminals, the "lived experiences" of the various (stupid phrasing) oppressed groups, fear of stereotyping, etc., etc., etc.
In short, I fear that your wish to hear from the legal community will dwell on all the stupid stuff that the legal beagles and will not at all consider protection of the public except as a phrase to be mouthed, not meant.
Clearly, we need to dedicate more money to this area. Much more money.
And, finally, I absolutely refuse to consider our criminal arrangement to be a "justice" system as it is, instead a "legal" system. Put differently, we have ever so many laws and rules and regulations and any similarity to actual justice is simply coincidence and rarely occurs.