Kienan's return: a positive crime story

Very encouraged to read a positive story relating to criminal justice. Lately I’ve been so caught up with the omnibus bill and all of its misguided legislation that it’s easy to get cynical and discouraged.

So it was nice to read a story about the parents of the little boy who was abducted in B.C. and see an example of compassion and meaningful encounters.

In case you don’t know, last month a three-year old boy was abducted from his bed at home in Sparwood B.C. The parents made a public appeal for his return and to everyone’s astonishment, little Kienan was returned unharmed.

The parents do not think he was harmed emotionally or physically.

The man accused of kidnapping Kienan was found not long after and is being held in prison until his trial.

What is so striking and encouraging about this story is not just the safe return of the boy, but also that his parents asked to meet with their son’s kidnapper and were allowed to do so.

Shortly after the man had been arrested, Kienan’s parents had a face to face conversation with him at the local RCMP station where they were able to ask the questions weighing on their mind and “talk it through”.

The father credits his strong Christian faith with his ability to meet with, and forgive, his son’s abductor.

This is a lovely story of compassion, but it is also a great illustration of how justice could become more meaningful for victims. Most victims of crime are plagued with questions, yet very few will have the chance to express these questions to the perpetrator of the crime and get some closure from that.

While certainly it would not be possible or advisable to have victim/offender encounters arranged following every arrest – the fact that in this case there was a positive encounter is encouraging. I commend the Herbert family for their courage, strength and compassion. And I commend their local RCMP office for seeing the value in the encounter and allowing it to happen.

“What does vengeance do,” Kienan’s father asked. “Anger feeds anger and hate feed hate.”

In so many way’s Kienan’s story is one of beautiful hope.

Victory for Insite

Today the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled that Vancouver’s Insite clinic can stay open and that Ottawa has to back off.

In a ruling based on evidence and research showing that Insite saves lives and promotes rehabilitation, the Court declared that Ottawa’s attempt to shut down the site undermined the protection of health and public safety and violated the Charter of Rights.

Insite supporters celebrated the win. “This is the triumph of science over ideology,” said their lead lawyer, Joe Arvay.

Insite opened in September, 2003 as a safe, sanitary, medically-supervised place where addicts can inject drugs. In this downtown Vancouver location, people “inject drugs and connect to health care services – from primary care to treat disease and infection, to addiction counselling and treatment, to housing and community supports.” It is funded by the BC Ministry of Health and is North America’s first legal supervised injection site.

The Court stated that Insite was “launched as an experiment. The experiment has proven successful. Insite has saved lives and improved health. And it did those things without increasing the incidence of drug use and crime in the surrounding area.”

In fact, the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS reports that since Insite opened, there’s been a 30% increase in the number of addicts who enter detox and the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority says there have been more than a million safe injections at the site with more than 1,400 overdoses but not a single death.

Prime Minister Harper has said that he is disappointed in the ruling, but that Ottawa will comply. This will likely fan the flames of Tory contempt for judicial powers though. It is also unlikely to change the Conservative approach which rejects that addition is an illness best treated by doctors instead of police and prison guards.

I predict that in the years to come the courts will be hearing more cases in which citizens groups challenge tough-on-crime legislation as reducing public safety and violating Charter Rights – especially given that legislation before us now is based on ideology, not evidence.

But today I’m grateful that we have a Supreme Court with the authority and wisdom to protect human rights from political ideology.

Discussing the Omnibus Bill

For those of you who are sick of me blogging about politics and justice issues, forgive me. Since the Omnibus Bill was tabled I have been spending much of my time following responses to the bill and encouraging Canadians to speak up and express their concerns. Even as I write my husband is sending out postcards to MPs about this issue. He’s never looked sexier.

(In case any of you would like to look similarly sexy, you can visit the Elizabeth Fry site for some postcards which you print double-sided and mail (postage free) to your local MPs and other key ministers like Harper, Nicholson, Toews, Comartin, Sandhu, Cotler and Rae.)

Anyway, you have heard plenty from me about this and related issues, so tonight I’ll share some of what Ministers were saying today about the crime omnibus bill.

Joe Comartin, NDP Justice Critic: “This bill continues a long-standing pattern of disrespect by the government to our judiciary by taking away judicial discretion around sentencing in particular.

Don Davies, NDP MP: “There is nothing in this bill that deals with prevention. There is nothing in this bill that addresses the need for increased resources to help prevent crimes from happening in the first place.”

Vic Toews, Tory Public Safety Minister: “Canadian prisoners convicted abroad continually want to come home and foreigners who are incarcerated in Canadian prisons do not want to leave. That should give the opposition an indication of the relative benefits of being in a Canadian prison.”

Paul Dewar, NDP MP: “I would plead with Canadians to hold their members of Parliament to account on this because it is going to cost us more. There is the economic argument regarding downloading all the costs to provinces which right now have difficulty withstanding the costs associated with education, health, et cetera. There is the question of justice. Does this work? The evidence is pretty clear in other jurisdictions that it does not....

“This is about dealing with an issue which all Canadians are seized with, but doing it in an intelligent manner, based on evidence and making sure we take what I believe is an overtly political agenda out of an extremely important issue.”

Tories table misguided crime bill

As expected, today the Conservative Justice Minster Rob Nicholson tabled the omnibus crime bill – the Tory’s massive ‘tough on crime’ legislation package. They’ve called it the ‘Safe Streets and Communities Act’. As the title shows they have a firm grasp on the rhetoric. I mean who wants to oppose safe streets and communities?

Unfortunately this 110-page bill is likely to lead to massive spending, tax increases, over-crowded prisons, decreased judicial discretion and fewer rehabilitative services – none of which will make our communities safer.

The Conservatives were brought down after being found in contempt of Parliament for refusing to disclose the costs of their tough on crime bills. They somehow managed to come back to government with a majority – and are still continuing to refuse to disclose the costs.

Nicholson says that they are ready to pay the price to keep the streets safe. Well, it’s the taxpayers who are going to be paying for it – not just through increased taxes but through seeing money taken out of services like health care and education and sucked into massive prison complexes.

I was at a press conference in the Centre Block today where four groups – the John Howard Society, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS), the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Native Women’s Association, all spoke out against the bill.

Catherine Latimer, Executive Director of the John Howard Society, pointed to concerns about already over-crowded prisons potentially violating human rights as they become more packed. Kim Pate, CAEFS, proposed that an amendment be added to the bill stating that it cannot be enacted until all the provinces and territories have signed off on the costs that they will have to face in housing the increased number of prisoners this bill will create.

Opposition MPs are also demanding that costs be tabled and that the bill not be rammed through without due consideration and deliberation.

“We’re being encouraged to believe we need this for public safety,” said Kim Pate. “It’s a farce. If in fact it was true, then the U.S. would be the safest place in the world, the States would not be going bankrupt and they would not be retreating from this agenda.”

Smart Justice

Tonight I thought I would blog about something I’m part of which perhaps may be of interest to some of you who read my blog.

As you have probably noticed, I’m quite concerned about just, humane and effective responses to crime. Because of this, I’m part of a new initiative called the Smart Justice Network. It’s a collaboration of individuals and organizations who are troubled by current practices and trends within the Canadian criminal justice system.

We are concerned about the increasing emphasis on punishment over prevention, about the people impacted by heavy-handed crime legislation, and about money that’s being poured into prisons – money which is desperately needed in so many other sectors such as health, education and social services.

We believe there is an urgent need for an informed public conversation that presents smart, safe and effective responses to crime and its consequences – and this is exactly what the Smart Justice Network hopes to ignite.

To ignite this public conversation we are creating a vast network of Canadians who believe in proven, effective and compassionate justice policies and practices. We plan to disseminate and produce comprehensive, carefully sourced information on the justice system and on smart justice approaches and practices, and to respectfully engage with the perspectives and stories of people who have experiences in the criminal justice system.

Our vision is a responsible criminal justice system which values justice and human dignity for all – victims, offenders and communities.

One of the things I’m doing as part of this network is building a website which will serve as a hub of resources, information and dialogue about Canada’s criminal justice system. The task of building such a site from scratch is a bit daunting, but it’s exciting to see people from across Canada and from different sectors join in the conversation. I really believe this has the chance to be something unique and very important.

If you are interested in learning more about the Smart Justice Network, please let me know. I can send you documents which describe in more detail our objectives, values, communication priorities, etc. You can follow also me on Twitter @Smart_Justice.

A just and compassionate society is worth striving for.

Prisoners' Justice Day

Today is Prisoners’ Justice Day, an annual day of memorial, vigil and protest when prisoners and supporters remember the men and women who have died inside prisons. On this day, thousands of inmates around the world refuse to work or eat in a show of solidarity with the brothers and sisters who have died behind bars.

In the decade between 1998 and 2008, 532 inmates died in federal custody in Canada from a range of known causes including natural death, suicide, accident and homicide. Correctional Investigator Howard Sapers argues that Canada’s federal prisons are more crowded and more tense, which contributes to an increase in violence and death behind bars. For example, from 2009-10 to 2010-11, both inmate injuries and self-harm rose by more than 60%.

Prisoners’ Justice Day is historically a day in which prisoners and their supporters draw attention to prisoner maltreatment and lobby for positive change. The day began to commemorate the death of Eddie Nalon who bled to death from suicide in the segregation unit of Millhaven Maximum Security Prison in Bath, Ontario on August 10, 1974. He was serving a life sentence at the time and had spent the previous two months in “the hole”. An inquest into his death found that the call buttons in his and other solitary cells had been deactivated by guards.

On the first anniversary of Eddie’s death, August 10, 1975, prisoners at Millhaven refused to work, went on a one-day hunger strike, and held a memorial service even though they faced the punishment of solitary confinement.

On May 21, 1976, Robert (Bobby) Landers, a prison rights activist, also died in solitary confinement at Millhaven. Despite his repeated requests for medical aid due to a heart condition, Landers was left unattended in solitary confinement. An inquest into his death determined that he died from a heart attack.

On August 10, 1976, prisoners in Millhaven again went on a hunger strike – this time to commemorate both Eddie Nalon and Bobby Landers and to protest the lack of implementation of recommendations following the inquests into Eddie’s death, as well as the practice of solitary confinement. Low-key peaceful protests have been since held annually in prisons across Canada.

Crime rates steadily falling

The next time you hear a politician claiming that the reason we need to invest billions of dollars into building more prisons and warehousing more people within them, please bear in mind a recent report from Statistics Canada which shows that crime rates continued their long-term downward trend in 2010.

Crime rates have been falling steadily for the past 20 years. The majority of the decline last year was in property crimes like break-ins and car theft. Decreases were also reported in many offences such as homicide and serious assault. The index measuring the severity of crime also fell by 6% to its lowest point since 1998 when the index was first available.

Our national rate of homicide is 1.62 per 100,000. While it’s very hard to make international comparisons about homicide due to variances in reporting, categorizing, etc. as a rough point of comparison I would like to point out that homicide rates, according to Wikipedia, in some other countries of the world: Honduras, 77; El Salvador, 70; Colombia, 32; Brazil, 25; Mexico, 18; America, 5.

Some types of crime did increase last year, such as child pornography, sexual assault, criminal harassment and drug offences (about half of which were for pot possession). However, most crimes are non-violent (4 out of 5 offences). And almost 2/3 non-violent offences are minor (theft under $5,000, mischief and break-ins).

Also contrary to the fear rhetoric of politicians, Toronto has one of the lowest crime severity index reports of Canada’s cities (the lowest being Guelph, followed by Quebec, Toronto and Ottawa). And despite the image often portrayed of violent youth gangs holding our cities hostage, youth crime rates have declined by 7%. And yet the federal government is seeking to substantially harden the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Despite this steady decline in crime rates, the Canadian prison population is expected to grow by 4,500 inmates by 2014 – not because crime rates are going to suddenly reverse their trend, but because the Conservatives are continually changing legislation so as to send more people to a jail for longer periods. Since 2006-07 when the Tories came to power, spending on Corrections has increased by 80%.

Have they imprisoned logic too?

Bringing back chain gangs

Ontario Conservative Leader Tim Hudak is adding a new twist to right-wing tough on crime policies, he’s aiming to get tough on ‘criminals’ by bringing back the chain gang.

He’s proposing that inmates perform a mandatory 40 hours of manual labour in order to receive credits for such things as purchasing coffee or the right to watch TV.

“If you want do things you get for free under Dalton McGuinty, like playing cards, watching high def TV, taking freeing the spirit zen yoga classes,” he said, “you need to do an honest day’s work just like every hard working family out there.”

The Ontario Liberals have responded by calling this a “reckless proposal” and claiming it would put Canadians in danger to have “these individuals” in their neighbourhoods and parks – as if inmates would just be turned outdoors, told to pick up some trash and come back at dinner time.

There are currently 8,488 inmates in Ontario. That number is going to balloon once the Federal Conservatives push through their crime omnibus bill which will see more people sent to jail and add to the number of people on remand – those who have not been convicted of anything but are sitting in provincial jails, typically in maximum security cells, awaiting trial.

The John Howard Society, a charity working to develop and promote just, humane and effective responses to crime and its causes, paints quite a different picture of Ontario prisons from that described by Mr. Hudak. They describe the prison environment as “dirty, degrading and dangerous”. For example, due to prison over-crowding, there can be 3 people to a 4 metre by 2.5 metre cell originally designed for one person, confined together for 12-14 hours a day or more. Health problems such as TB are rampant.

Since they lack regular access to fresh air and even showers, I can see that the chance to work outdoors, outside the prison walls, would be eagerly welcomed by some. I can also imagine that an opportunity do physical labour could be rewarding and therapeutic. But something tells me that’s the welfare of inmates is not what is driving this proposal. I’m going to look into this some more.

Let's get tough on the prison agenda

I haven’t done a rant lately about justice issues – but this great cartoon from the Toronto Star has inspired me to vent again. Well, that the way the Conservatives keep drumming out ‘tough on crime’ rhetoric that flies in the face of research, reports and basic common sense.

Crime rates have steadily declined over the last 10 years and yet so many candidates in this election keep emphasizing how they are going to fight crime and get tough on criminals.

Even if crime was they kind of large-scale problem they would like us to believe, certainly it would make sense to implement practices that have been proven to actually lower crime rates. But no, our government seems intent on building more prisons and filling them with more people - even though incarceration is not as effective in lowering crime rates and recidivism compared with prevention, treatment, and community-led programs.

Corrections Canada currently spends just over $2,200,000,000 a year on prisons. And now there are plans to build 2,700 additional prison beds at a cost of $2,100,000,000 ($800,000 per bed). This makes no sense and Canadians should be outraged.

Be even more outraged when you look more closely at who exactly we are spending these billions of dollars on to warehouse in prisons. In provincial jails, close to 60% of the people in prison have not even been convicted – they are awaiting trial and may be found innocent or guilty of a crime not deserving jail. We keep clogging up the system with more people and paying $100,000 to $200,000 a year to keep them in jail while they wait. So much for due process or innocent until proven guilty.

Kim Pate of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies points out that over 80% of women in prison are incarcerated for poverty-related offences. Additionally, 82% of women who are federally sentenced in Canada have experienced physical or sexual abuse, 75% have less than a junior high school education, 34% are Indigenous, and the majority live with mental health issues.

It would be wonderful if during this election campaign Canadians challenged their local candidates and party leaders to present strategies for actually fixing our justice system.

Something positive for prisoners

I’ve been looking a lot at what is wrong with the Canadian justice system, frustrated by our government’s stubborn commitment to pursue agendas that may sound good to voters but are destructive for the people directly affected. So it was refreshing and encouraging today to learn about a great program that is actively doing positive things for prisoners.

Stride is a program within Kitchener-Waterloo’s Community Justice Initiative which supports federally sentenced women coming out of the Grand Valley prison into the KW community. They use community engagement and circles of support to provide care and support for women who face so many obstacles when leaving prison and trying to build a new life for themselves.

Most women in prison, and those who are coming out of prison, are isolated and stigmatized. The vast majority have been physically and/or sexually abused. Most were unemployed at the time of their offence; two-thirds have not completed high school. It is naive and unrealistic to expect that these women can leave the harsh prison environment and seamlessly integrate into communities.

Stride matches trained community volunteers with women wanting support with re-entering the community. By having community support and caring volunteers encircling them, women have a much better chance of not only staying crime-free, but also improving their lives.

My description in no way does justice to this exciting project. One aspect of the program which is really interesting and which I’m itching to participate in is called the ‘Stride Night Program’ in which community volunteers and local agencies go inside the prison walls to participate in evenings of crafts, sports, games and socializing. These evenings provide opportunities for inmates and community members to build relationships that can be so important and helpful for women’s community integration.

And next time I’m in Kitchener I’m going to make a point to check out RareFunk, a consignment store in the downtown that supports the female inmates by selling ‘Fresh Start Creations’ - the crafts and art which female inmates create. Through the proceeds from these sales, these women are able to give back to the KW region by donating to local women’s or children’s charities.

Yet another reason to move to KW...

Elections - More prisons or real justice?

I’ve been writing quite a bit about justice issues lately. And the more I learn about the backward policies our government has been advocating, such as building more prisons while reducing services and programs that actually rehabilitate and assist offenders, the more frustrated I become.

The Conservative government was recently found in contempt of Parliament (something unprecedented in Canadian history) in part for failing to disclose the full cost of their ‘tough-on-crime’ agenda. They have already acknowledged that they will spend an estimated $6 billion in construction costs alone for new prisons, but what we don’t know is the real total which will be spent on incarcerating and warehousing all the new convicts. Budgets for prison infrastructure have already more than doubled in five years (from $88.6-million in 2005–6 to $211.6-million in 2010–11).

Of course, the Tories want to make sure these prisons are filled. They are doing this by changing the Criminal Code to increase mandatory minimal sentences and by removing the discretionary powers of judges who might recognize that an offender is not actually a threat to the community and that the interests of all parties – victims, community and offender – are best served by using alternatives to prison such as reparation, restitution and treatment.

Yet while this election was brought about by issues of contempt and spending on prisons, these issues have all but disappeared from the media.

So I would like to humbly suggest that should you encounter any candidate in the next few weeks, or have a chance to ask questions which may be put before political parties, you may want to remind candidates about what triggered this election and ask if our tax dollars will continue to be dumped into ineffective, pricey ‘tough-on-crime’ agendas.

You could mention that more than a third of prisoners in provincial jails have not even been convicted of a crime – they are awaiting trial. The majority of our inmates are serving a sentence for a non-violent offence (78% and 31% in provincial and federal penitentiaries respectively). Many repeat offenders are mentally ill – they require treatment, health services, education, housing and employment.

Ask for real improvements to our justice system, not simply more prisons.

The costs of the 'tough on crime' agenda

So the Conservatives finally revealed the costs of their ‘tough on crime’ agenda – well, grudgingly revealed, since documents were produced only after Speaker Milliken’s landmark ruling that the Tories may be flouting the rights and will of Parliament by stonewalling on cost estimates for justice bills and other legislation.

By their estimates (which are likely conservative, hah) a total of $631-million will be spent to implement the new justice bills – this is in addition to the $2.1-billion tab for prison expansion.

When you look at the total expenditures on the penitentiary system in Canada, the increase under this government is stark. For example, in 2005/06, the Liberals spent $1,597-million on the federal penitentiary system. In 2009/10, the Conservatives spent $2,267-million and are projected to spend $3,128-million by 2012/13.

In capital expenditures, the spending will increase from $138.2-million in 2005/06 to $466.9-million in 2012/13 – an increase of over 330%. Interestingly, their staffing levels don’t increase nearly at the rate of their other spending costs. From 2005/06’s 14,633 staff, they increase only to 20,706 in 2012/13. So while there will be more prisons and more prisoners, it doesn't seem that there will be corresponding increases in staffing.

All these figures likely make your eyes glaze over – I’m sure they do to most people. Because the most meaningful and important impacts of the ‘tough on crime’ legislation are not, of course, the numbers. The most worrisome impacts are on people.

The legislation that the Conservatives are forcing through Parliament will see that we lock up behind bars more youth, more women, more Aboriginals, and more people with mental disorders and substance abuse problems. The vast majority of these cases could be handled with treatment and programs within the community – at far less cost and far greater success.

The Conservatives’ prison-focused approach to crime and justice goes against massive amounts of research on effective approaches to crime, and it disregards the lessons that the Americans are learning after having implemented such laws decades ago – only to see their crime rates continue to climb while the costs of prisons have become unmanageable.

Building more prisons and sending more people to prison is a waste of money – and of human beings.

Learning from victims of crime

I went to a panel discussion today which was looking at how victims of crime can be better served in the Canadian justice system. For the last couple of weeks I’ve been looking a lot at how offenders are treated – and mistreated – in the system. It was very interesting and informative to look at the other side of the story.

Although I actually don’t think it is the other side of the story. How offenders and victims are treated is so intertwined – they both become part of an adversarial process in which their actions and experiences become forced into various legal slots which fail to get to the real heart of what happened – to the human needs, the human suffering, the human relationships which were affected.

It was so clear today, in listening to this panel and the people in the audience, that victims of crime feel neglected, unheard and dismissed. The focus of our system is on placing blame and assigning punishment. It is not on actually addressing the needs of the people who have been damaged.

One panellist was pointing out that if the only way that victims feel heard, feel their pain has been acknowledged, is in what sentence is handed down – then that sentence can never be enough. He said if the sentence is manslaughter, the victims will feel it should have been 2nd degree murder; if the sentence is 2nd degree, the victim will want 1st. He said that in conversations with people working with victims in Texas, their satisfaction after a sentence of capital punishment was no greater.

Alternatively, research and stories have shown that when victims are involved in the process, feel empowered to make decisions and to be heart, the importance they place on the sentence is diminished.

As I keep seeing, as I keep learning, the answer to improving our justice system is not in longer sentences or more jails – this works for neither the offender nor the victim. It was stated repeatedly, in many different way, that victims need to be included in justice process, they need to be informed about what is happening and what services are available – essentially, they need to be respected.

email to the Parole Board of Canada

As I’ve blogged about before, the Conservative government is moving to increase the length of time before which criminal offenders who have served their sentence can apply for pardon. They are also radically increasing the fee which applicants will have to pay.

However, Canadian law mandates public consultation on changes to public fees – including the fee for pardon application. So the Parole Board of Canada is currently seeking public input on the proposed fee increase – it was $50 last year, was increased to $150 in December and now is proposed to be $631.

I believe that this decision which will make it much more difficult for former offenders to lead full and productive lives as members of society. If you happen to agree or have any concerns or comments with this bill, you have until Feb 27 (this Sunday) to have them included in this public consultation.

You can email the Parole Board of Canada at consultations@pbc-clcc.gc.ca.

As an example:

To the Parole Board of Canada,

I am writing to express my concern about the proposed increase to the pardon application fee.

Since 1970, more than 400,000 Canadians have received pardons, 96% of which are still in force – meaning the recipients remain crime-free within their communities. Why is the government impeding a process with this level of success? There is no evidence that this fee increase will in any way make our communities safer.

The people most affected by this proposed increase are disproportionately poor, disadvantaged, and marginalized. The proposed $631 fee is very likely to be far beyond their means.

Without a pardon, a person’s chance of finding decent work is extremely limited – and we know that lack of employment is very highly correlated with the likelihood to re-offend. Unpardoned, they continue to live with stigma and oppression, exacerbating such things as low self-esteem and social isolation. Unpardoned, they are more likely to remain on welfare or return to criminal activity, both of which are a far greater cost to citizens and communities than that of subsidizing the cost of processing pardons.

As a concerned Canadian citizen, I sincerely appeal to the Parole Board of Canada to not raise the fee for pardon application.

Bill C-23B - part II

Yesterday I wrote about how Bill C-23B, a piece of legislation on the table, aims at extending the length of time before which offenders can receive pardon. I said that I would explain today how such legislation could actually make communities less safe.

First, to be clear, pardons do not mean that people’s criminal records are erased, but that the information is removed from public record so as to improve their chances of obtaining employment and reintegrating into society. For example, a pardon ensures that a sexual offender's criminal record doesn't show up on checks of the Canadian Police Information Centre, unless the offender applies for a job involving children, the disabled or any vulnerable group of people.

Pardons can only be applied for after the expiry of a sentence, which means people have paid all restitution orders, served all of their time and satisfied their probation orders. Since 1970, more than 400,000 Canadians have received pardons, 96% of which are still in force – meaning the recipients remain crime-free within their communities.

But the government is proposing to extensively lengthen the amount time before which people can apply for pardons – to 5 from 3 years for summary conviction crimes, and to 10 from 5 years for more serious indictable offences, such as manslaughter

And in addition to delaying pardons, the cost of applying for pardons will increase to $631. Only 2 months ago they already bumped the price to $150 from $50. This may not seem like a lot of money too most, but to people who have been unable to find real work due to their criminal records, this could be an insurmountable obstacle.

Because without a pardon – in other words with a criminal record – a person’s chance of finding decent work is extremely limited. And lack of employment is very highly correlated with likelihood to re-offend. Unpardoned, people also continue to live with stigma and oppression, exacerbating such things as low self-esteem and social isolation which further contribute to anti-social behaviour.

So essentially, by making it harder for people to obtain pardons, the government is increasingly the chances that they will commit more crime – in other words, actually threatening the safety of communities.

Bill C-23B - Proposed changes to Canada's pardon system

I spent much of the day researching a piece of legislation currently on the table in Parliament. Given that it’s been a long day (including a few hours observing the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Parliament Hill), I’m going to turn these notes into a blog. And as a warning, I’m likely to only become more interested in issues of criminal justice and so there will be more blogs about topics such as this. This blog will also be divided into two parts – with more to follow tomorrow.

On June 17 of last year, the House of Commons split Bill C-23 (An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act) into 2 new bills - C-23A and C-23B. Bill C-23A was passed quickly without much debate – pushed through because Karla Homolka, having completed a 12-year manslaughter sentence, would have been eligible for parole under the old legislation and the government used her example to push for legislative changes. It essentially allows the National Parole Board to “deny any pardon that would bring the system into disrepute”.

The second part of the bill – C-23B: Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act, is currently before the house. It addresses the remaining aspects of Bill C-23 with such things as substituting the term “record suspension” for “pardon” and extending the period of ineligibility for a record suspension to five years from three for summary conviction crimes, and to 10 years from five for more serious indictable offences such as manslaughter. It also makes those convicted of sexual offences against minors and those who have been convicted of more than three indictable offences as ineligible for a record suspension.

And as with the other current ‘tough on crime’ legislation initiated by the Tories, there is no evidence that this Bill will result in gains to public safety or that it will further the objective of protecting victims. Instead, it’s been described by Kim Pate, executive director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, as “yet another sad and sorry attempt to inflame, rather than to inform, the public.”

Tomorrow, I will offer more information about why such legislation is actually counter to efforts to build safer communities.

Forum for Criminalized Women

As part of my new job, I spent the afternoon at a community forum on criminalized women. This is a subject on which my knowledge has been only marginal, but I’m now getting a chance to sink into it. What I am discovering is quite sobering and disconcerting.

For example, women are the fastest growing prison population not only in Canada, but worldwide. Of the over 1,000 women in Canadian federal institutions, almost a third have a self-identified mental health disorder, the vast majority are poor and under-educated, and over 85% were abused.

If this begins to paint a picture for you of the type of women behind bars in Canada, add to it that over a third are Aboriginal and two thirds are mothers.

Further, almost half of the crimes that they have committed are crimes of property – such as theft and shop lifting. The majority of women charged with assault or murder were acting against an abuser of themselves or of their children. And over 70% of women who are sent back to prison are re-incarcerated because of a technical offense, such as failing to fulfill a parole requirement.

Are these women such threats to their community that they must be locked up for months or even years far from their families and support networks? Because there are such fewer women prisoners then men, there are also fewer prisons, half-way houses, services, etc. – meaning inmates can be thousands of kilometres away from home and support.

Across the board, research shows that offenders are better able to reintegrate into society and less likely to reoffend if they have community support. Yet repeatedly in the discussion today we heard how there is a lack of support within the community, a lack of funded and available programs.

Our government is moving to build more prisons, extend prison sentences and impose more mandatory sentences – none of these things have been shown to deter crime or lower rates of re-offending and none of these things will give criminalized women what they most need – which, as one speaker put it, is support, respect, meaning, healing and connection.

I’m just new to all this. But I’m getting fired up already.