Justice Committee on Nov. 20th, 2006

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

But in terms of jail, is that actually a punishment that is appropriate in some cases?

[Kim Pate]

It's not one that we've seen work very effectively for most people.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

At all?

[Kim Pate]

For most people, no. And certainly our position is very much for women, in thinking there should be an incarceration strategy.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

So we should get rid of jails? Is that the position of your organization?

[Kim Pate]

Well, our position is that the least restrictive measures would mean those who are a risk should be removed from being made a risk—but in fact the ways we've used imprisonment have not been effective.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Brown.

Mr. Woods, you made a comment during your presentation, or during the question time, and in fact the Elizabeth Fry Society made similar comments, that--and I'll paraphrase it--criminals, if jailed, become more accomplished criminals as a result of being inside the system. That's quite a significant statement to make, when you.... It doesn't say much about our jail system, I would have to suggest. Maybe that's what we should be concentrating on, exactly what is going on inside the jails. Is it because you feel the criminals are running the jails? Why would you make that statement as clearly and defined as you did?

[C/Supt Michael Woods]

It's simply that prisoners in jail, no matter what kind of jail it is, are living in very close proximity. Unless you have them all in solitary confinement, there's no way you can prevent them from socializing--talking, sharing stories. It's through that story sharing, that information sharing, that young people who are less sophisticated in the ways of crime will learn better ways to commit crime from the boasts of the older prisoners. That's a truism and a long-standing belief.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

What would you suggest to prevent that from happening? Nobody seems to want to address that particular issue, and yet it's been brought up in our deliberations here by I don't know how many witnesses.

[C/Supt Michael Woods]

In my view, first of all, some criminals deserve to be in prison.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Absolutely.

[C/Supt Michael Woods]

And in some cases they deserve to be in prison for the rest of their lives. But once they get to prison, I don't think there's any reasonable way of preventing them from interacting socially with other prisoners. In fact, to prevent interaction at the social level would probably create an even more violent or less-controlled prisoner.

So, number one, certain people should go to jail, and number two, they're going to have to suffer the consequences.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

It's a fact of life.

Thank you.

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Woods, some of the best information you gave us--in fact, most of it--was the stuff that wasn't in your brief. I'm wondering if you could provide the clerk of the committee with some of that information--that was very good--that list of root causes, all that type of stuff. Perhaps you could provide it to the clerk, so we could circulate it.

[C/Supt Michael Woods]

Certainly.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Also the comments you made on your first intervention...that would be great.

We have to recognize that for all these crimes, everyone who goes to jail comes out, except for the couple of dozen lifetime offenders. Both witnesses have made very good points; society is more at risk if people come out having had less than the best treatment and are more dangerous than when they went in.

The options and what happens to them and the time of treatment.... We had the stats person in, who suggested that on conditional sentences alone or with probation, it takes an average of 700 days of working with a person to make sure they come out safer, and in strict prison sentences they're there for only 47 days.

In making society safer, it seems obvious to me, but I'd like to ask the Elizabeth Fry Society.... And keep in mind, in all these crime bills we're dealing with, there's no reduction of the maximums. The courts, the judges, can sentence people to the maximum. They can keep the dangerous offender in for life, so there's no reduction of any of those. The judges still can do...all those serious crimes.

I'd like to ask everyone if, in your experience working with prisoners, you found helpful the discretion the judges now have. Are there times when it's good that the judge has broader discretion? Most of these bills we're dealing with are limiting that discretion, limiting the choices.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Bagnell, get to your point, please.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

That was my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

A quick response, please. I do have one more question.

[Debra Parkes]

Thank you.

Absolutely, we do take the position--it's in our brief--that interference with judicial discretion is one of the major problems with this bill, in particular because it doesn't allow the factors to be taken into account. There are always a variety of factors, including mitigating factors, such as a person who has a defence of duress. They don't meet the defence of duress or self-defence, but they're very close to it in terms of the defence. So on sentencing, that can be taken into account, that this is a less serious robbery, at least that the person's involvement, the woman who was the accomplice along with the man who was.... She was under some duress but doesn't meet the full defence. That can be taken into account in sentencing. When you do this, you take that away entirely. You don't have a proportionate sentence, in our view.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Ms. Parkes.

Did you want to reply to that, Mr. Woods?

[C/Supt Michael Woods]

I'll make one quick comment. Most judges that I've met should have as much discretion as they have now; there are a few that shouldn't have any. That's the reality.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Woods.

Mr. Thompson, one quick question, please.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

A quick point, and then I have a question.

In terms of a comment that comes from me quite often about not reporting crime, I know a lot of victims who I've met and talked with who would rather not report it for fear of further repercussions, because of the lack of help from the court system. There's quite a few of them.

Also, I have a son and daughter whose house was broken into, jewellery, furniture, all stolen, and there was never an investigation of the crime. It was reported, but there was never an investigation, no attempt to find them. It was simply because there wasn't enough manpower in that rural area to get to that kind of crime. I want to point out that this is why that's being said by me so much.

But in the prisons, the gangs are very operative. Is this correct?