Evidence of meeting #48 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was research.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Queen's University, As an Individual
The argument is not that we shouldn't be concerned about offences against children, or that it's not a problem now, but the argument is that it's better--and it's considerably better--
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Queen's University, As an Individual
Yes, still some distance to go.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Another area in which I'm really very interested has to do with victims.
Dr. Quinsey, perhaps I could take it up with you, because you said that you haven't treated victims. My understanding is that many perpetrators in fact were once victims, so would it be correct to say that among those perpetrators who you've treated there would be some who had suffered victimization as children?
4:15 p.m.
Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Queen's University, As an Individual
No, there definitely were, but I've never treated them for the victimization.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Right. So what I'm interested in is, from either or both of you, do you see from victims, particularly children, that they are satisfied with the manner in which the justice system has responded to their victimization, or do you see instead anger from them and further interior conflict as a result of their encounters with the justice system, if you are able to say?
4:15 p.m.
Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Queen's University, As an Individual
I don't know, I'm not in a position to comment on that.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
You're out of time, unfortunately.
We're going with Ms. Jennings for five minutes.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Merci, Monsieur le président.
Thank you both for your presentations here.
Both of you have expressed agreement that in certain cases sexual offenders should be subject to minimum mandatory penalties. In the Criminal Code there are three categories of sexual offences. There are those that have a maximum penalty, but no minimum. There's a second category that already has minimum mandatory penalties and of course a maximum penalty. Then there are the two new offences that the government, through this legislation, hopes to create and that would also have minimum mandatories.
Given the amount of research that has been done on sex offenders, on the rates of recidivism, on the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of minimum mandatory penalties, are you aware of any studies that actually looked at the criminal offences currently in the Criminal Code, for which there are already minimum mandatory sentences, to determine how effective those have been?
4:15 p.m.
Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Queen's University, As an Individual
I looked, and I didn't see anything. There are no empirical studies I'm aware of that address those variations in criminal sanctions.
4:15 p.m.
Psychologist and Professor (retired), University of Montreal, As an Individual
I could not provide a better answer. Your question makes me somewhat uncomfortable in that I do not have a clear answer for you. Perhaps I may digress a bit.
4:15 p.m.
Psychologist and Professor (retired), University of Montreal, As an Individual
In response to a question that was asked a moment ago, there was reference to the fact that therapy for the abuser could to some extent help him heal his own victimization. On this point, I would like to refer to the results from some studies.
I am thinking, for instance, of studies done in Washington a number of years ago. These studies indicate that abuser victimization, or the fact that an adult offender has himself been abused during his childhood, what is referred to as the cycle of abuse, has been largely exaggerated. An American researcher from Washington, Hindley I believe, demonstrated, through very original methodology, that most often, adult abusers questioned on their own childhood will say that they themselves were sexually assaulted. They lie because it is a societal excuse that...
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Psychologist and Professor (retired), University of Montreal, As an Individual
Exactly.
So, I would like to emphasize this point. It is not an opinion. It is based on research from the United States that has been repeated, in fact.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you very much for this explanation. I think it supports the comments made by a number of parole board members, at the provincial level or at the National Parole Board, to the effect that sex offenders can be manipulative. It is a way for them to justify their actions. So, I am not surprised.
I have another question regarding mandatory minimum sentences. As everyone here has said, there are already mandatory minimum sentences within the Criminal Code that were brought in by a previous government. However, these sentences are quite short: 14 days in some cases, and 30 days in others.
I would like to know your opinion on this. If we create a system of mandatory minimum sentences for criminal offences of a sexual nature, specifically those against our children, should mandatory minimum penalties be harsher or more lenient? I am calling on your expertise in this area.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Psychologist and Professor (retired), University of Montreal, As an Individual
The logical basis for this bill rests on the notion of a sliding scale, in other words, proportionality.
I think that for a series of offences or crimes, mandatory minimum sentences can be light, because, it would seem to me that they are rather symbolic in nature and their harshness or length is of secondary importance. I believe in symbolic measures and that is why I have a bias in favour of short mandatory minimums.
February 14th, 2011 / 4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I will try to focus on this subject. I have to admit that I was not expecting, on this Valentine's Day, to be talking about this inappropriate type of love. It is not really love. It has more to do with violence and control.
I am concerned, Professor Van Gijseghem—and I know you well as I have heard you testify on a number of other subjects—because you say, if I am not mistaken, that pedophilia is a sexual orientation.
4:20 p.m.
Psychologist and Professor (retired), University of Montreal, As an Individual
That is what I said.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
4:20 p.m.
Psychologist and Professor (retired), University of Montreal, As an Individual
Yes, or heterosexuality. If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all.
I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc