Evidence of meeting #36 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was minimums.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Thank you, Monsieur Petit.
Mr. Stewart, at the end of the previous intervention of Monsieur Ménard, you seemed to indicate you wanted to add something. If it is a short response, you could do it now.
4:30 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
Thank you very much.
The question asked why there does not seem to be conclusive evidence about the deterrent effect of sentencing.
I was going to make the point that I've been appearing these committees for many years, and it seems that almost every time I've appeared, the questions have been the same: what is the perfect punishment? What number is going to make the difference?
It's my conclusion that the sentence is largely irrelevant. For most people, there are very many good reasons not to commit crimes. I'm not going to leave here and steal a car. It's not because I'm worried about going to jail; it's not because I'm worried about the penalties. It's about the environment, the values you're in, and the circumstances.
My point was simply that in the end, if we want to understand crime and what might affect it, we have to get beyond the notion that the only reason certain people commit crimes is that they haven't been punished enough. It's a very simple equation, which is largely irrelevant. There are other factors, as I've just discussed, that are far more important.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
November 29th, 2006 / 4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you all for coming; we really appreciate it.
You should be thankful Myron Thompson is not here.
I particularly appreciated your testimony, Graham, because you're one person who has worked with prisoners for a long time. We have the academics and people who have brief interaction with them, but you've worked with them for a long time, and that's very important to me and increases the importance of your testimony. I was surprised you talked about all the scientific evidence when you have the on-the-ground evidence.
I'd like to say that if Mr. Borovoy and Mr. Stewart made their speeches in Parliament, I can't imagine that anyone would vote for this bill. I wish you were in Parliament.
Mr. Borovoy, I'm not a lawyer. On the technical points of the constitutional exemption in the Latimer case, can you tell me if that exemption would be available for people if this particular bill should pass? Could they be exempted from these harsh and unusual punishments, unusual cases, by that exemption?
4:35 p.m.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
The answer is theoretically yes. The problem is it's a very high threshold to cross. Despite what is often said about the activism of judges, the judges in fact have exercised considerable restraint. In many situations they have taken the position that they think the particular punishment is inappropriate, but they are reluctant to say it's unconstitutional, even in particular sets of circumstances.
I think the answer has to come down to yes, it's theoretically possible to secure a constitutional exemption with the mandatory minimums, but as a practical matter it will happen so rarely that it is not worth considering as a way out.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Okay. That's good.
As parliamentarians, we have to make our decisions based on fact and science and evidence, and that's mostly what we talked about today. I'm glad you all quoted the studies that studied all the other studies, so that it's not just one individual, it's a comprehensive review. The witnesses all to date have suggested that a comprehensive review shows that these don't work, shows that there's no deterrent value, and the evidence is quite clear.
But we had a witness--just so we leave no stone unturned--in the last meeting, Professor Lee, from Carleton, and he quoted a Dr. Steven Levitt from Chicago. One of the quotes--I won't quote them all--said, “The evidence linking increased punishment to lower crime rates is very strong.”
That's exactly opposite of what you said, Mr. Stewart.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
I would, and Alexi may as well.
Yes, as we've said, there are some studies that claim that there's a relationship. Most of the literature that says this is in fact done by economists, not by criminologists.
The primary study, for instance, that one should be talking about is one of those cases in which the study was produced that showed data on every other year rather than every year, and on the basis of that concluded that there was a sharp and immediate decline in crime in California immediately after severe punishments were introduced for certain crimes.
What Canadian researchers Tony Doob--who will be here next week, and answer this question far better than I--and Cheryl Webster did was re-create the data and found that when you inserted the missing years the decline in the crime rate started well before the introduction of the legislation.
The problem we have is that there's been, from a statistical point of view, a long and sustained decrease in crime throughout North America, indeed around the world, for the last 20 years, and during that period of time everybody who's done anything claims that what they did is responsible. So we have endless, usually small studies by given states or jurisdictions, or claims by politicians who brought in a particular bill that they brought in this bill and now we're seeing this decline.
The only way to really understand the phenomenon is to understand it in the context of the overall decreasing crime rates that have taken place over the last ten years. And when you do that, you find almost inevitably that the declines people are claiming their bill was responsible for in fact were preceded by declines that were already in place.
4:40 p.m.
Director, Program Safety Project, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
If I might add on to that, I believe the researcher to whom you're referring is referred to in the Doob and Webster article that is cited in our materials.
Doob and Webster spent about three pages explaining why Levitt's conclusions are inaccurate and misleading. Doob and Webster claim that he also ignores a large body of the evidence.
I'm quoting from the article:
Levitt's review focuses largely on only two studies--both his own (Kessler and Levitt 1999 and Levitt 1998)--as evidence “for a deterrent effect of increases in expected punishment”. (2002, p.445). In addition, two other studies are cited in which offenders were interviewed. However, this latter research relates more to individual deterrence than to general deterrence.
He goes on to say that Levitt is remarkably selective in the literature that he cites and then how, for the sake of completeness, he needs to elaborate on the evidence that Levitt has cited.
So I would draw the committee's attention to this article and to the analysis presented by Professor Doob.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
To the chair.
Mr. Chair, if I were to give this document to the two groups, would they be willing to respond to the committee? Because it's the only one that suggested otherwise to the rest of the evidence.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Yes, the clerk would be happy, if it was in both official languages, to make it available to the witnesses.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
And if you could respond to the committee, if you're interested, that would be great. This is from Professor Lee.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
We'll give them some time to read it.
Now I'm going to go to Monsieur Lemay, pour cinq minutes.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I have five minutes to talk about an issue as important as this.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
If I could, just on two little points of order—
I know Mr. Bagnell made a point earlier about our colleague Mr. Thompson, and the point that I don't think Mr. Bagnell had a chance to get to was that Mr. Thompson is almost all of the time here with us at the committee.
And the second point I wanted to make was that Monsieur Ménard has advised the chair that he does not intend to move the motion that is shown on our agenda today.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
I respect Mr. Art Hanger. He is sick, and I want to make sure that when we discuss it he will be here.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
That may assist some members in planning the next few hours. Thank you.
Monsieur Lemay.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you for being here today. I read your briefs with a great deal of attention. They are very informative, as were your remarks.
I was a criminal lawyer for 25 years. Unfortunately, Mr. Champagne, some of my clients are in your establishment.
