Evidence of meeting #5 for Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was risk.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Dr. Bonta, I'm sorry for interrupting, but I want to focus on that point you just made. In terms of those other indicators, can they be placed before a court with some degree of reliability and credibility by other than psychiatrists and psychologists?
Director, Corrections Research Unit, Department of Public Safety
Yes, I believe so.
NDP
Director, Corrections Research Unit, Department of Public Safety
The other major indicators could be simply assessments of criminal thinking, pro-criminal attitudes, which do not require a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist to make—
NDP
Director, Corrections Research Unit, Department of Public Safety
Yes.
I think in some correctional systems they may even administer paper and pencil measures of some of these to get direct assessments of pro-criminal thinking, so to speak. What I'm saying is we have risk factors, and the flip side of a risk factor is a strength. So if you're unemployed and you can show that you're employed, you have a strength and you have a risk factor. Presence of substance abuse or the absence of substance abuse: a risk factor and a strength.
So to try to answer your question, what can someone say to show they have some positive aspects to them? It's simply looking at their having the absence of these risk factors, which could be measured in a number of ways; they are working or whatever.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
But if I'm sitting there as the judge, how do I interpret the significance of those other factors without expert testimony?
Director, Corrections Research Unit, Department of Public Safety
I would invite the judge to attend a meeting with Mr. Ménard so they can be educated about the importance of risk factors. That's something I have personally done in going out to speak to judges on understanding the technology of risk, because they're faced with it every day.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
You would need to recognize, Dr. Bonta, that given the limited number of applications we have, and even if they increase somewhat, the chances of most judges seeing one of these during their careers is limited to one or two, given that most judges are only on the bench for 10 or 12 years.
I want to explore another area with you. In terms of the quality of the evidence that could be put in front of a court.... This really raises the issue--and there was a suggestion that you heard it from the CPA earlier--that one of the amendments that should be moved is to include the provision that an application could be made for a dangerous offender designation in the circumstances where there has been a long-term offender designation and the person has breached the conditions.
Given that scenario—the application is now coming forward for the dangerous offender—would both the quality and quantity of evidence...? I assume the quantity would be a definite increase because the person has been incarcerated for a number of years. But would the quality of the evidence--the certainty of your assessment in terms of the likelihood of this person continuing indefinitely to be a risk to society--go up because of the length of time the person had been in custody? I'm assuming there would have been ongoing assessments and treatment modalities applied during that period of time, or maybe attempted to be applied.
Just objectively, from the outside I'm thinking if a person had been in custody—I'll think of the Callow case—for 20 years. You've had a long-term opportunity to observe, assess his capabilities, his risk to society. That evidence would be superior in quality to what we would have had had they made an application when he was first convicted 20 years ago.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Couldn't he just say, yes, my analysis is correct, Mr. Chair? We'll save all that time.
Director General, Offender Programs and Reintegration, Correctional Service Canada
I'll say a quick yes, the quality of assessment goes up with the amount of time one has to observe the behaviour of the phenomenon under question. There's time to observe. There are opportunities provided to engage in treatment or in interactions with others. Bringing forward that information forms part of the overall estimation of risk in terms of in what situation or circumstances this individual would pose a threat in some form or other.
So to be clear, yes, I think you would have an opportunity to add value to the overall quality of those assessments given what's occurred during that period of time. Also, if there's a breach during a period of supervision--what are the aspects around that--it allows those who are tasked with the supervision of those individuals to bring forward evidence as well.
Liberal
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to both of you for coming here today and sharing some of your thoughts on this issue.
Mr. Bonta, I've received two different studies you have prepared. One was in 2006, entitled Tracking High-Risk, Violent Offenders: An Examination of the National Flagging System, and you also did another study, The Crown Files Research Project: A Study of Dangerous Offenders, about 10 years earlier. In the first study, I believe you made the statement: “There is now a consensus that general reoffending can be predicted among criminal populations.” And you just confirmed that a few minutes ago by stating that criminal history is the best indicator of recidivism. It's not the only indicator, but it's the best indicator.
You also noted in that first study that there are about 300,000 violent or sexual crimes committed annually, and of those, there are about 57,000 of those offenders who could be expected to reoffend again, but there are only 30 designated offender designations, which basically works out to less than 1% of the violent recidivist population. I think that is the nub of the issue here. We have a significantly sized population that can be expected to reoffend, and our legislation tries to focus in on that.
Are you in a position to be able to say, at least on a general basis, that if a person offends once—a violent or sexual crime—there's an increase of probability that the individual will reoffend, and that if the individual commits two crimes of similar nature the probability of recidivism goes even higher, and if there were a third offence it goes even higher? Is this a statement you can make?
Director, Corrections Research Unit, Department of Public Safety
What you're saying is half true, from the empirical evidence. Committing a first-time violent offence, and there's no other history of a violent offence, is actually associated with a decrease in the likelihood of it recurring. It may sound surprising, but a violent offence by itself with no history makes you less likely to commit a new violent offence.
Once you've gone by and started having a history or a pattern of violent behaviour, then the risk begins to increase. If you've committed a violent offence, and you've done it once before, yes, you have a higher likelihood. If you've done it twice before you have a higher likelihood, and those likelihoods increase in very small increments. Our prediction gets better when we start considering other risk factors.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'm looking at your report, An Examination of the National Flagging System, and you mention that 57,000 of those offenders of violent sexual crimes committed in Canada annually can be expected to reoffend with a violent or sexual offence.
Based on what you've just told me, those 57,000, most of them, are going to have reoffended at least one time before.
Director, Corrections Research Unit, Department of Public Safety
For that data, for sure, yes, you're right.
Conservative
Conservative
Director, Corrections Research Unit, Department of Public Safety
Yes.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
And also the provisions that still allow the judge to have some discretion? Correct?
