Pathways
to Safer Communities: Rethinking
Crime Prevention
by
David Kilgour, M.P., Edmonton
Southeast
May 21, 1997
It
is now widely accepted that
effective crime prevention
can reduce crime and protecting
Canadians better from crimes
of violence must be a priority
as we enter the 21st century.
Central to this must be
a many-sided national anti-crime
strategy. It should be comprehensive
enough to achieve long-term
and permanent results and
it must contain elements
which can be put swiftly
into operation. Key elements
in changing the culture
of violence should include:
justice system reform, victims'
rights and support, new
approaches to sentencing
and policing, social/community
development, financial support
for preventive programs
that work, research and
information, and monitoring
programs and projects. Criminologists
say that a combination of
all contributing factors,
rather than any single one
of them, best correlates
to crime and violence so
prevention strategies must
be diverse as well.
Crime
and Punishment
Despite
small reductions recently,
the crime rate nationally
in 1995 was 7% higher than
a decade ago. Canadians
continue to feel threatened
by crime: half of us feel
less safe than five years
ago. The National Crime
Prevention Council says
48% of Canadians believe
violent crime is increasing.
After unemployment, crime
was viewed by Canadians
in one poll as the most
important issue. We are
50% more likely than Europeans
and 500% more likely than
Japanese to be victims of
burglary, assault, sexual
offences and robbery. In
any given year, we have
a one in-four chance of
being victimized by a crime
and, according to the Fraser
Institute, a 99% chance
of being victimized through
the course of our lifetime.
Canadians spend, the Institute
estimates, about $ 195 million
on security devices and
security systems.
Spending
more on law enforcement
is not producing the desired
results. In June 1995 there
were 2.7 million crimes
known to police for our
population of about 30 million.
The population in federal
prisons climbed 22% between
1989-90 and 1994-95. In
1995-96, there was a daily
average of 33,791 adult
prisoners in federal and
provincial institutions.
There are 4,900 young people
in jail in Canada on any
given day, an increase of
26% since 1986-87. Incarceration
now costs $ 100,000 a year
for a young offender and
between $40,000 and $80,000
for adults. A total of $
1.9 billion was spent on
corrections in Canada during
1995 alone.
Data
from the Canadian Centre
for Justice Statistics confirms
that we have one of the
highest rates of incarceration
in the world. In 1994-95,
our rate was 130 per 100,000
persons, which was exceeded
by Russia with 558 per 100.000,
the U.S., 529 per 100,000,
and South Africa, 368 per
100,000. The rate in the
United Kingdom was 92; Italy
89; France 86; Germany 66;
Belgium 72; Sweden 66; and
Turkey 51.
Despite
the escalating rates of
incarceration in Canada
through the period 1989-96,
our crime rate has remained
relatively constant. In
1994, there were 55,865
police officers across Canada.
Between 1962 and 1993, the
number of police more than
doubled, while the number
of crime incidents increased
by 430%.
New
Ways of Fighting Crime
Irwin
Waller, the respected director
general of the Montréal-based
International Centre for
the Prevention of Crime,
believes Canada needs to
look to countries other
than the U.S. for new ideas
of how to combat crime.
"What Canada has done
for two centuries -- wait
for crime to happen and
react -- is incredibly expensive
in terms of the losses that
victims suffer, the losses
to cities and the health
costs as a result of injuries."
An international forum at
a conference held in Vancouver
in 1996 called "Towards
World Change: Setting the
Stage for Community Safety"
heard successful experiences
from around the world in
new and less expensive approaches
to crime prevention.
A
mix of social and situational
crime prevention is being
used in the Netherlands
and Belgium with excellent
results. Both countries
recruit unemployed persons
to work as paid "city
guards." Approximately
20,000 unemployed people
in the Netherlands receive
a few weeks of training
and serve on the streets,
acting as street monitors,
tourist guides and mediators
in petty disputes. They
do not have any power; that
is reserved for the police.
The results included a decrease
in petty crimes, an improved
city image, and important
work experience and training
for the unemployed, leading
to some jobs in other sectors.
In
Britain, closed-circuit
televisions in public places
have cut crime and court
costs. Violent crime in
Gloucester, as reported
by the head of the Crime
Prevention Agency of England
and Wales, Ian Chisholm,
dropped by 80 per cent after
two television-monitoring
systems were installed.
In Newcastle, crime fell
by 30% and most of those
charged with videotaped
crimes pleaded guilty, avoiding
costly trials.
More
Effective Policing
In
the U.S. it is respectable
again to believe that police
can have a real impact on
crime rates. For decades,
criminologists held the
view that crime was too
deeply connected to underlying
social causes: from the
state of the economy to
family break down. These
causes are still recognized
as crime-producing, but
what has changed is the
view that police are useful
only to chase down bad guys
after they strike.
James
Q. Wilson, the criminologist
and political scientist
whose ideas helped engineer
New York's stunning crime
reduction, believes that
the number of police on
the streets of a city probably
has only a weak, if any,
relationship with the crime
rate. "What the police
do is more important than
how many there are at least
above some minimum level,"
he says. The directed patrols
strategy, advocated by Wilson,
aimed at hot spots, loitering
truants, late night wanderers,
probationers, parolees,
and possible gun carriers,
all in addition to routine
investigative activities
will require more officers
in many cities, but can
make streets safer without
sending more people to prison.
The
'90s has seen a reinvention
of how the police do their
work, especially in major
cities: a change from squad
cars to foot patrols; a
shift to "proactive"
policing that aims at dissolving
problems such as open-air
drug marts rather than making
arrests; more frequent creation
of cross-agency task forces
to target specific problems
such as car theft or drug
crimes. New York is a good
example of a new approach
to policing where major
crime -- murder fell by
40%, rape, robbery, auto
theft, grand larceny, assault
and burglary are in a statistical
free fall, dropping by more
than a quarter in two years.
"So now you're seeing
better policing. Not miracles
or panaceas but better policing,"
says John DiLulio Jr., a
professor of politics and
public affairs at Princeton
University.
Tougher
and softer approaches simultaneously
are being adopted by police
forces: tougher means more
aggressive intervention
by police, e.g. arresting
drug dealers for trespassing.
The softer approach means
more neighbourhood-friendly
tactics: the foot patrolling
and problem solving that
form the loosely defined
strategy called community
policing -- neighbourhood
cleanups, counselling on
child abuse, helping children
with homework, playing basketball
with youths, etc.
There
is a move away from patrol-car
policing that limits them
to 911 emergency response
calls. Face-to-face contact
between police and the people
they work among with no
windshield in between helps
to build trust. The Edmonton
Police Service attributes
declining crime rates and
increasing clearance rates
to the department-wide implementation
of the community-based policing
philosophy.
New
York City Experience
New
York City, a place that
has long been synonymous
with out-of-control crime,
appears to be scoring a
victory in its battle against
crime. Most major U.S. and
Canadian cities have also
reported lower crime rates
in 199S, but the decline
in New York has been going
on longer and is far steeper
than almost anywhere else.
Since early 1993-1995, its
murder rate dropped by more
than 37 per cent; robbery
by 31 per cent; and auto
theft by 35 per cent. The
number of serious crimes
has fallen (the lowest levels
in 25 years) by 27 per cent
during these two years,
compared with the overall
U.S. decline of only 2%
in the same period.
New
York's dramatically falling
crime rates have also been
affiliated with "simultaneity"
-- many things happening
at the same time and it's
hard to sort them out: prison
building is paying off,
taking the most dangerous
criminals off the street,
changing demographics (decreasing
numbers of young men 15-24),
the crack epidemic may be
fading, turf wars among
drug dealers are declining,
the police force has been
shaken up, beefed up, decentralized
and modernized.
The
primary factor in New York's
new climate appears to be
the triumph of the "broken
windows" theory. It
was announced by James Q.
Wilson and criminologist
George Kelling in a 1982
Atlantic Monthly article.
In essence, they said that
the best way to fight serious
crime is to fight the disorder
that precedes it and weakens
a neighbourhood -- panhandling,
graffiti, alcoholics sleeping
on the sidewalks, wreaked
cars that remain unsowed,
a street population taking
over a park.
In
this new view, the core
function of police is the
prevention of crime by maintaining
order. "The broken-windows
theory is ascendant over
Manhattan's traditional
liberal culture of root
causes and of untrampable
individual rights for troubled
street people. This is happening
in other cities too, and
it's very good news for
us all," says US.
News and World Report.
The
former Police Commissioner
William Bratton, appointed
in 1994, introduced sweeping
changes to crime-fighting.
He believes in the 'corporate'
approach to police work:
"I'm trying to run
the NYPD as you would a
private corporation, criminals
are our competition. In
the private sector, you
always keep an eye on what
your competitors are doing
and try to stay one step
ahead of them."
Bratton
brought in computerized
maps to track crime patterns.
He made drug squads and
other specialty units work
beyond their former nine-to-five
hours. He got tough with
officers on the ground:
precinct commanders and
other top police brass are
questioned once a month
on crime patterns in their neighbourhoods. Bratton
designed these compstat
(short for computer statistics)
meetings as a way to make
his 76 far-flung precinct
commanders and 38,000 police
officers accountable for
the crime rate. Nobody has
done it before and it works:
for two years, crime declined
in all 76 precincts; murder
was down 39%; auto theft
35%, robberies were off
by a third; and burglaries
were down by a quarter.
Compstat
has become the Lourdes of
policing, drawing 'pilgrim
cops' from around the world.
Bratton's strategy was to
shift the department's focus
toward community policing
and promoting an atmosphere
that makes crime less likely
in the first place: cracking
down on petty offences such
as graffiti and drinking
in public. These are considered
"quality of life"
crimes, which are at the
top of the police priorities.
The theory is that tolerating
public disorder creates
a street environment that
intimidates law-abiding
people and opens the way
for more serious crime.
This
theory appears sound. Police
in New York are finding
that people arrested for
minor violations often turn
out to be armed, already
wanted on other charges,
or both. In 1993, one of
every 438 people arrested
for riding the subway without
paying was carrying a loaded
gun. Now that police routinely
frisk such people, the figure
has dropped to one in every
1,034.
An
increase in community and
small business action in
certain areas to clean up
blighted blocks, providing
extra lighting and improving
building security, have
had an impact in formerly
crime-plagued areas such
as Times Square and Grand
Central Station.
The
New York Transit hired criminologist
George Kelling and turned
the subways around since
about 1990. Zero-tolerance
policies for graffiti and
panhandling were launched.
Many thousands of turnstile
jumpers were arrested in
vast sweeps. With social
control returning, riders
began to trust the subways
again and crime rates fell.
The same theory was applied
to parks. Bryat Park, an
open-air drug den near Grand
Central Station, was converted
into a "derelict-free
jewel of a space with fresh
flowers."
New
techniques in crime fighting
also include mandatory community
service instead of prison
for non-violent criminals,
special attention to young
offenders and redesign of
streets and houses to reduce
criminal opportunities.
In the U.S. and hopefully
now in Canada, there are
a great number of criminal
justice intervention projects,
which include programs for
victim restitution, job
placement, substance abuse
treatment, rehabilitation
and sentencing alternatives.
The
1996 Report of the U.S.
National Criminal Justice
Commission, The Real
War on Crime, identified
a number of cost-effective
programs that reduce and
prevent crime in varying
degrees. From among thousands
that were tried in the U.S.,
the Commission selected
those which it "...believes
that if one or more of these
programs is implemented
in a given community, the
results will be positive."
Examples of successful preventive
programs include:
Earn-it
Earn-it
is a victim restitution
program serving as a sentencing
alternative for Juvenile
Court. Since its inception
in 1988, more than three-quarters
of Earn-it youth have
successfully repaid their
victims and community.
Sheriff’s
Work Alternative Program
(SWAP)
Created
as a response to overcrowded
jails, the SWAP program
allows offenders to "work
off" their sentences
through various jobs,
ranging from shovelling
snow to washing county
vehicles. Participating
'driving under the influence'
offenders have a 3 per
cent recidivism rate,
while other participating
offenders have a 20% recidivism
rate, compared to a 70
to 75 per cent one for
offenders who serve jail
sentences.
Court
Employment Project (CEP)
This
is for youthful felony
offenders and provides counselling, education
training, job training
and placement, drug counselling,
parenting skills, and
anger control counselling.
Re-arrest rates for felony
offenders sentenced to
standard sentencing options
were 96 to 150% higher
than for offenders sentenced
to six months in CEP followed
by five years on probation.
Family
Ties
Family
Ties identifies the needs
of each delinquent child
and works to strengthen
family functions through
intensive home-based services,
therapy, counselling and
decision-making and anger
management skills. Approximately
eight in ten of all juveniles
who participated in Family
Ties during l 991 and
1992 remained uninvolved
with the juvenile system
six months later. Over
a period of a year or
more, the success rate
was 82 per cent.
Shaming
Sentences as an Alternative
to Prison?
In
recent years, sentences
given by some judges in
the U.S. increasingly emphasize
humiliation. The aim is
also to shame the criminal
and to show moral condemnation
in addition to punishment.
It is becoming increasingly
popular with judges who
wish to cut imprisonment
costs -- while shaming offenders
into reforming their conduct.
Research
on the effectiveness of
shaming is almost non-existent,
but scattered evidence suggests
that the strategy is effective
with juvenile offenders
who are forced to apologize
in public or adults whose
identities are made public
in morally loaded non-violent
crimes like check kiting,
drunken driving, soliciting
prostitutes, embezzlement,
burglary or larceny. The
shaming sentences have a
lot in common with strategies
once used by American Indian
tribes or groups like the
Amish, both of whom shunned
members who broke societal
rules.
The
University of Chicago legal
scholar, Dan Kahan, argues
that the new penalties are
emerging as a serious rival
to imprisonment, "because
they do something that conventional
alternative sanctions don't
do -- express appropriate
moral condemnation,"
and free up badly needed
jail space for serious offenders.
Two
examples of "creative"
sentencing given out by
judges in the U.S.:
- A
teenager who had stolen
and damaged an elderly
woman's car was ordered
to pay for the repairs
on the stolen Buick and
to turn over his Pontiac
Trans Am to the victim
while her car was in the
shop;
- Convicted
drunk drivers put bumper
stickers on their cars
notifying others of their
record.
Some
critics claim certain debasing
sentences go too far; some
shaming sentences have been
struck down by courts. Guidelines
are probably needed to discourage
judges from idiosyncratic
sentences; though shaming
is clearly useful for minor
offences, particularly those
involving juveniles, judges
should be cautious
about using it on hardened
offenders or the flamboyantly
unrepentant. Law enforcement
agencies should begin serious
research into the question
of when such sentences work
and when they do not.
Nipping
Violence in the Bud
Criminologists
have established that about
6% of boys of a given age
will commit half or more
of all serious crime produced
by males of that age. This
formula has been found to
be consistent and true in
major urban centres in various
countries. As most criminal
careers begin in juvenile
years, it is important to
identify the characteristics
of these chronic offenders
in order to devise and determine
what kinds of early intervention
programs might prove effective
and prevent further delinquency.
James
Wilson in his essay, Crime
and Public Policy, identifies
those in the 6% group: "They
tend to have criminal parents;
to live in cold or discordant
families (or pseudo-families);
to have a low verbal intelligence
quotient and to do poorly
in school; to be emotionally
cold and temperamentally
impulsive; to abuse alcohol
and drugs at the earliest
opportunity; and to reside
in poor, disorderly communities.
They begin their misconduct
at an early age, often by
the time they are in the
third grade. These characteristics
tend to be found not only
among the criminals who
get caught (and who might,
owing to bad luck. be an
unrepresentative sample
of high rate offenders),
but among those who don't
get caught but reveal their
behaviour on questionnaires....
And these traits can be
identified in advance among
groups of randomly selected
youngsters, long before
they commit any serious
crimes -- not with enough
precision to predict which
individuals will commit
crimes, but with enough
accuracy to be a fair depiction
of the group as a whole.
Not everyone in the 6 percent
looks like this, and some
high rate offenders begin
their criminal careers much
later in life; but in general
few criminologists are any
longer surprised to find
that the typical chronic
offender looks pretty much
as I have described him."
The
effective response to this
knowledge of preventive
strategies will probably
determine our rate of success
in combating crime. There
is evidence that less-costly
youth crime prevention programs
work over time. Research
indicates that for every
$1 spent on the early intervention
program, almost $7 in savings
to the public were generated
by averting juvenile placements
in youth detention facilities.
Programs found to be effective
in reducing delinquency
are Head Start (pre-school)
programs, programs of family
visitation and family preservation
among others.
Good
quality pre-school programs
in particular, have proven
to be remarkably effective
-- years later -- in reducing
both the incidence and the
severity of criminal behaviour
among children who participated
in them. One U.S. project,
the High/Scope Perry Pre-school
Project in Ypsilanti, Michigan,
showed that good pre-schools
can reduce the costs of
crime by nearly $150,000
per participant over a lifetime.
A 1993 report Significant
Benefits, found that
after 20 years, participants
had fewer arrests than a
control group and were five
times less likely to have
been arrested five or more
times. Other studies also
document the reduction of
juvenile criminal behaviour
through early care and education
programs.
A
Syracuse University study
examined a program that
provided child care and
home visits to very poor
families. Six per cent of
the program children, compared
to 22 per cent in a control
group, became adolescent
probation cases. Non-participants
committed more robberies,
burglaries and physical
and sexual assaults. Juvenile
justice system costs per
child were 10 times less
for the pre-school home
visiting group than for
the control group. Other
studies, have come up with
similar results, especially
related to aggressive behaviour
in teens.
The
successful programs aiming
to make large and lasting
changes in a child's prospects
for improved behaviour,
better school behaviour
and lessened delinquency
shared the following common
features: they dealt with
low income families, they
intervened during the first
five years of a child's
life and continued for between
2 and 5 years, they included
parent training with pre-school
education for the child
and they involved extensive
home visits. These programs
improved over-all self control,
and resulted in less fighting,
impulsivity, disobedience,
restlessness, cheating and
delinquency.
Canadian
Experience
Crime
prevention through social
development is taking place
in many Canadian communities.
Projects in major cities
offer street youth employment
opportunities to gain valuable
work experience; these are
programs that aim to reach
children and families at
risk by improving parenting
skills and providing access
to services and resources.
More research needs to be
done to evaluate the success
rate of these programs and
more funds to extend those
that produce positive results.
More
research is needed to develop
responses on how to deal
with children under 12 who
commit crimes. The Toronto
based Earlscourt Child and
Family Centre has found
that the response to under-12
offenders varies widely
across the provinces and
there is little consistency
in the way in which these
children and their families
are identified or helped.
The
Earlscourt innovative program.
"Under 12 Outreach
Project,'' is the only reported
treatment program in Canada
solely committed to deterring
further criminal activities
among children under 12
who have had police contact.
Since its inception in 1985,
835 children have been referred
to the project. The criminal
activities of 203 of the
treated children are being
followed up to age 18 as
part of a long-term outcome
study. The project's results
are encouraging and indicate
that the rates of delinquency
in this high risk population
can be reduced with multisystemic
intervention aimed at teaching
children self-control, problem
solving, basic academic
and recreational skills
while teaching their parents
to use contingent rewards
and punishments and to monitor
their children's whereabouts.
Though offences in Canada
committed by children under
12 account for only 1.2%
of offences committed by
children, youth and adults,
these children are at high
risk of juvenile delinquency
and adult criminality.
The
former Edmonton police chief,
Doug McNally, who co-chairs
the National Crime Prevention
Council's prevention and
children committee, says
that politicians must realize
the best and cheapest way
of fighting crime is to
have healthy children in
sound families. Stressing
that criminality takes root
in disturbed, pre-school
children from poorly functioning
and often economically stressed
families and that disruptive
behaviour can be detected
when such children first
enter school, he believes
that by the time they come
to the attention of police
by age 12 or 13 some may
have already passed the
point of no return.
McNally
observes many people support
harsh treatment for young
offenders over spending
on crime prevention. It
costs less than $10,000
per child a year in the
Head Start program designed
to help children at risk
when they start school,
but it costs $100,000 a
year to keep a young offender
in jail. Edmonton has 412
children in Head Start programs,
but apparently there are
another 3,000 children who
need help.
The
Second Step violence prevention
program, developed by the
Seattle based Committee
for Children, has been used
in many Canadian elementary
schools since the early
1 990s. The program takes
about 30 minutes of class
time a week to teach children
about anger management and
problem solving by getting
them to discuss a series
of photographs showing children
in common school situations.
The program was evaluated
by a team of scientists
from the University of Washington's
Haborview Injury Prevention
and Research Centre, who
monitored children in the
Second Step Program and
compared them with children
with no counselling. It
was concluded that the program
resulted in reducing the
level of aggression and
increasing the pro-social
behaviour of the participating
children.
Restorative
Justice
In
Ontario, the Harris government
has moved towards minor
adult offenders diversion
programs. Citing a situation
where too many petty offenders
are getting off scot-free
because the courts and Crown
Attorneys are too busy to
handle low-priority crime,
Harris argued that: "The
confrontational diversion
approach is better than
nothing which seems to happen
a lot in minor cases. Some
of those penalties are far
more onerous than going
to court to get a slap on
the wrist. We are trying
to come up with a tough
approach that is tough on
crime and rehabilitative."
Under this new "Restorative
Justice" program, perpetrators
and victims are brought
together so offenders can
apologize to their victims
face to face, make amends
for transgressions, repay
their victims and escape
court proceedings and any
record of the offence. It
only applies to the "most
minor offences" like
shoplifting, mischief, vandalism
and trespassing. Crowns
would be required to arrange
meetings between perpetrators
and their victims to restore
differences. Critics of
this new program have already
voiced their concerns: "This
(restorative justice) flies
in the complete opposite
direction to what you see
in New York," one Ontario
government official was
quoted to have said. "We
are not social workers.
We don't need touchy-feely
programs."
The
St. Leonard's Society of
London, Ontario, has been
involved in restorative
justice with first time
offenders aged 12-16 for
eight years. It says 92%
of those children did not
re-offend. Recently, the
society initiated the formation
of justice circles where
community members decide
on punishment for first-time
young offenders in London.
In the past, the Crown and
St. Leonard's would decide
on the community services
that best suited a first-time
young offender. The major
difference with justice
circles is that the punishment
comes from members of the
community. Recently, a justice
circle sentenced a 13-year-old
to 25 hours of community
service for a minor theft.
This justice circle consisted
of nine people, including
two teenagers, a retiree,
a social worker and concerned
citizens from the community.
The director of community
programs at St. Leonard's,
Alice Lewis, believes a
successful circle requires
people with a sense of community
wanting to build their neighbourhoods.
She says they must really
care about where they live
for restorative justice
to be successful: "We
want the justice to be restorative
while making the young person
accountable for his actions,"
she said ĉ quoted in The
London Free Press.
The
Sparwood Youth Assistance
Program began in 1995 ĉ
a community initiative by
Sergeant Jake Bouwman of
the Sparwood Detachment
of the RCMP and Glen Purdy,
a Sparwood lawyer in private
practice. The purpose of
the program is to allow
young people who broke the
law to be dealt with outside
of the traditional court
system, through a means
of dealing with the young
person, the victim, the
young person's family, and
the community ĉ a whole
in an effort to reduce repeat
offences by young people.
It is based on the Community
Accountability Conferencing
Model developed in Waga Waga, New South Wales, Australia,
and Shame Reintegration
Theory. Since the inception
of the program, all youth
who have committed offences
residing in the District
of Sparwood and surrounding
community have been dealt
with in the program rather
than the traditional court
system. The Sparwood model
has since been adopted in
16 other communities in
B.C., various ones in Alberta,
and several aboriginal communities.
The reduction in offence
rate has been dramatic since
the inception of the program,
26% in 1995 and 67% in 1996.
The re-offence rate for
young offenders in the program
was 8.3% in 1996 as compared
with the national re-offence
rate for youth of 40%. The
offences dealt with have
included minor property
offences, break and enter,
assault, mischief and minor
sexual assaults.
Dollars
and Cents of an Ounce of
Prevention
One
study estimates that if
we took $1 million and invested
it in prison space for career
criminals, the investment
would prevent 50 crimes
a year. If that same amount
was used to monitor 12-
and 13-year-old delinquents,
it would prevent 72 crimes
a year. If that million
dollars was invested in
incentives for young people
to graduate from high school,
258 crimes a year would
be prevented. In short,
money spent on crime prevention
should be seen as an investment.
Successful
crime prevention requires
both political will and
financial resources -- two
commodities currently in
short supply across Canada.
The cost of crime to Canadians
is staggering: it costs
$46 billion a year, including
$9.7 billion for the formal
justice system and the indirect
social costs of crime such
as medical) social and employment
costs related to crime victims.
On the other hand, it is
estimated that Canadians
spend only $10 million a
year on crime prevention.
In contrast, Belgium with
a population of 10 million
spends $140 million a year
on crime prevention programs.
Burglaries in Great Britain
were reduced by 35% thanks
to a successful $60 million
Safer Cities program. An
additional million dollars
annually is provided for
Crime Concern, an independent
organization promoting and
initiating local crime prevention
activities. In France, there
are almost 900 municipal
crime prevention councils.
The
Dutch have a crime prevention
unit equal in status to
other justice work with
a budget of about $30 million
and it continues to grow.
More than 100 municipalities
have crime prevention co-ordinators
in place to facilitate local
action in crime prevention.
Crime
Prevention Council
In
Canada, the National Crime
Prevention Council was created
in July 1994 as an element
of a national strategy to
reduce crime and the fear
of crime. One of its major
roles is to provide federal,
provincial and territorial
governments with advice
on how to direct and unify
crime prevention research
and activities being undertaken
by all levels of government.
Another role is to promote
new initiatives, enhance
ones that are already in
place and to come up with
recommendations that will
allow governments, police
forces and other agencies
to rethink the way they
do their work, and suggest
more innovative ways to
prevent crime.
This
is a very tall order for
a 25-member council whose
annual budget is about $2
million. To its credit,
despite limited resources
it has been very active
in sponsoring seminars and
publishing reports on a
number of important issues
relating to root causes
of crime and advocating
crime prevention mainly
through social development.
The lack of serious attention
by all levels of government
and lack of substantial
core funding for prevention
related activities remains
a major hindrance in our
progress in developing and
putting into practice effective
anticrime strategies.
The
NCPC noted in its first
report published in late
1995: "...there is
little indication as yet
that Canadian governments
have rethought their dependence
on the traditional reactive
responses to crime and victimization.
What is more frustrating,
there is little indication
that their expressed desire
to involve communities in
prevention has been accompanied
by a willingness to provide
them with the resources
they need if they are to
succeed."
The
1993 Homer Report on Crime
Prevention in Canada, Towards
a National Strategy, addressed
the issue of stable core
funding in support of crime
prevention and the mobilization
of communities. It proposed
the allocation of 1 % per
year of federal spending
on criminal justice (to
a total of 5% after five
years) to crime prevention;
and it recommended that
the revenues obtained from
Proceeds of Crime be directed
to support prevention activities.
The National Crime Prevention
Council, created as a fulfillment
of one of the Report's recommendations,
has repeatedly called for
directing 1 per cent of
the federal justice budget
to crime prevention. In
its 1995 report, Proposal
on Proceeds of Crime the
NCPC reiterated its calls
for a minimum of 50% of
revenues resulting from
Proceeds of Crime be used
for community based crime
prevention. The Council
also notes its disappointment
on the lack of action taken
on either recommendation
regarding funding for crime
prevention.
The
RCMP has probably seized
more than $100 million in
assets across Canada during
the last five years and
$8.5 million in 1996. A
law was passed in 1989,
allowing police forces at
all levels to seize the
proceeds of crime from people
convicted in court. In 1993,
The Seized Property Management
Act was adopted providing
a framework for managing
seized assets and sharing
of forfeited proceeds of
crime. A portion of forfeited
assets can be shared where
agreements are in place
with provincial and foreign
governments. Sharing is
based on the degree of participation
of police forces or other
agencies from each jurisdiction.
The federal government negotiated
such agreements with Ontario,
the Yukon, B.C., Alberta
and New Brunswick.
The
recent commitment by the
Chrétien government of $30
million a year to be allocated
to community based crime
prevention is a step in
the right direction and
will help to carry out work
that is still needed to
develop effective and comprehensive
anti-crime strategies.
Justice
For All
Justice
to Canadians should mean
not only apprehending offenders
and bringing them to trial,
but also that justice is
achieved by the manner in
which the court deals with
criminals. Canadians and
victims' rights groups increasingly
voice their concerns that
the justice system is too
lenient with criminals,
that bail and parole are
too easily granted, and
prison sentences are often
not long enough to fit the
crime. A comment by Ray Canuel, the Vancouver Chief
of Police quoted in the
Fraser Institute report
on crime cost is indicative
of how many Canadians feel
about our justice system.
"Criminals laugh at
the system...I think the
general public out there
feels the parole system
is not working, the corrections
aspect is not working...maybe
the court system is not
working -- it's overloaded,
overworked. It's time we
have a look at it. If we
can fix it, let's do that."
Much has been done in the
past several years to address
these problems yet much
remains to be done to ensure
the immediate and long-term
safety and security of the
public. A careful balancing
of justice. deterrence,
rehabilitation and fairness
is needed, particularly
when faced with the overcrowded
state of our courts and
prisons, to maintain public
confidence that justice
is being done.
Most
Canadians question the priorities
guiding our justice system,
particularly in the context
of the Young Offenders Act.
It was reported earlier
this year that the Justice
Department is studying proposals
under which chronic criminal
abusers could get five years
in jail. By contrast, young
offenders who kill cannot
be sentenced to more than
three years in detention,
some of which can be served
in the community. Scott
Newark of the Canadian Police
Association, commenting
on the problems facing our
justice system, had this
to say about the Supreme
Court of Canada justices:
"Their use of power
has ensured that justice
is now replaced by law in
our court rooms."
Victims
of Violence, while supporting
some crime prevention strategies
such as community policing,
improved schooling, treatment
for victims of abuse and
others, believes a more
effective justice system
to be one of the best weapons
of crime prevention. Some
of the areas which Victims
of Violence identifies as
requiring change are: the YOA, repeal s.74S, the parole
system, high-risk/dangerous
offenders, broader security.
improved and more treatment
for offenders who need it
and more police officers.
Victims of Violence stress
that "poverty does
not equal crime, and to
say it is an injustice to
every hardworking, honest,
disadvantaged Canadian."
They add that, "criminal
justice reform is an essential
part of a crime prevention
strategy. More welfare and
social assistance may not
be programs that Canadians
are willing to accept. This
will not create self respect,
and without respect for
oneself, respect for anyone
else is difficult. Rewarding
individuals for breaking
the law (as the Netherlands
is considering doing) does
not provide an incentive
to obey the law."
Rights
for Victims of Crime
Although
the victim is 50% of the
crime, he or she is rarely
consulted as half of the
solution. The justice system
must treat victims of crime
with special regard for
the pain and loss they have
suffered. Victim support
services should be available
to provide restitution and
psychological help, when
appropriate, and to explain
the procedural steps involved
in criminal prosecution.
Too often, victims who are
also witnesses are required
to miss work and appear
in court only to learn that
the hearing or trial has
been postponed or a plea
agreement has been reached.
Victims of crime should
be informed of the status
of the case and be given
notice if a plea bargain
is being considered.
For
a number of years, Canadians
Against Violence Everywhere
Advocating its Termination
(CAVEAT) has attempted to
bring to the attention of
policy-makers the rights
of victims: "For too
long, victims of crime have
been ignored by the criminal
justice system. While every
safeguard is taken to protect
the accused, very little
is done to help the victim.
There is a severe imbalance
between the rights of the
accused and those of the
victim. Victims not only
suffer at the hands of criminals,
but also experience revictimization
under our justice system
which is largely unresponsive
to their needs and those
of their families."
CAVEAT
has developed a number of
recommendations to achieve
meaningful change on behalf
of victims within our justice
system. Central to it was
the enactment of a Federal
Victims' Rights Bill. The
recent limited progress
at the federal level with
some issues relating to
victims did not result in
the passage of a Victims'
Bill of Rights. The new
Parliament must find the
political will needed to
achieve a balance to the
treatment of both perpetrators
and victims of crime.
Helping
Abused Children
Often,
while discussing juvenile
offenders, it is overlooked
that a high proportion of
young people are victims
of crime. One study showed
that 23% of crime victims
were between the ages of
12 and 19, double their
representation in the population.
Of every ten sexual assault
victims, four are children,
and another four are teenagers.
Only two are adults. There
is growing evidence that
childhood victimization
by adults may be a significant
factor in criminal behaviour
by youths and adults.
Many
abused children grow up
to be abusers and this sad
reality has again been confirmed
by research results presented
at John's Hopkins University
in Baltimore. This recent
discovery is one of the
first to provide a biological
explanation for the connection
between violence in childhood
and adulthood: children
experiencing violence may
become violent as their
brain structure adapts to
abuse.
Youthful
experiences can increase
levels of the hormone known
as vasopressin in adults,
which can alter the structure
of the brain and profoundly
change behaviour. In this
context? immediate help
and treatment for young
children who are victims
of sexual/physical abuse
is extremely important.
The organization, Victims
of Violence, has long advocated
putting more emphasis on
treatment for the victim
and not solely for the offenders
in order to break the cycle.
More funds should be made
available to help young
victims. Children now may
have to wait up to two years
to get treatment.
Towards
Crime Prevention for 2000
The
basis for effective crime
prevention across our country
has already been laid; we
have a breadth of talent
and experience to draw upon
to develop a comprehensive
anti-crime strategy that
will make our communities
safer. Decisive political
leadership, sound and substantial
funding and accountability
are essential. Swift action
is needed to follow the
innumerable studies, reports
and commissions that we
have to date. It is essential
that it be all-inclusive
and many-sided; we cannot
allow the bureaucratic process
to take over the formation
of all policy; we must allow
the voices of victims of
crime, police, social activists,
educators and ordinary Canadians
to be heard.
Developing
a coherent strategy and
putting it into practice
without delay will constitute
an ultimate test of how
we as a society treat crime,
its causes and our safety.
|
