Evidence of meeting #23 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was treatment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
A voice
It was with a larger sample.
5:10 p.m.
Director, Corrections Research Unit, Department of Public Safety
I don't see why it would matter. In fact, as you get to larger samples, you run a larger risk of making errors, because it's hard to keep on top of everything. When you have a small sample for an evaluation study, you can be more involved and make sure that everything is being delivered the way it is supposed to be delivered.
As I mentioned earlier in my presentation, the study in the state of Arizona found a huge number of false alarms. In the CSC evaluation, we found drifts; you'd think the person was in the east end of Toronto, but he'd be in the west end.
The technological experts and engineers you're going to listen to can also talk about this issue, because there's more than one kind of electronic monitoring device. There are many different ones. They all have their advantages and disadvantages, but none, as far as I know, is foolproof and has 99% accuracy.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much, Mr. Bonta.
We'll move back to Mr. Sadhu, please, for five minutes in the second round.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Jasbir Sandhu NDP Surrey North, BC
It's been very informative. I really enjoyed your explanation of the four things in the psychology of punishment. It's been a learning experience. I know you've had a couple of minutes on that topic, but would you like to take a couple more minutes to talk about it?
5:15 p.m.
Director, Corrections Research Unit, Department of Public Safety
When I first started to train as a psychologist, it was in the good old days of the late 1960s, when we were allowed to do punishment experiments on animals and people. They can't do it today, but we learned so much about how punishment works that I think by the late 1970s psychologists had just stopped doing experiments on it. There was no more to study. We knew when punishment worked and when it didn't work.
If you take psychology at a university today, you won't find a course on the psychology of punishment. The disappointing thing is that the criminal justice sector didn't pay attention to this research. Certainly the Americans in the late 1970s didn't pay attention to it, because if they had asked, any psychologist would have told them that more punishment, in whatever form--“scared straight”, boot camp--is not going to deter criminal behaviour. The evidence is just so crystal clear.
Now, after 30 years of experimentation in the United States, we have enough criminal justice studies--hundreds of them--to show that criminal sanctions do not deter crime.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Jasbir Sandhu NDP Surrey North, BC
Who would be an ideal candidate for electronic surveillance or monitoring?
5:15 p.m.
Director, Corrections Research Unit, Department of Public Safety
Well, if I was pushed into doing a study, I would focus on selecting some medium- to high-risk offenders who have been having difficulty staying in treatment programs. Let's select those, add the bracelet to them, and also make sure they go to a very good treatment program.
One thing I need to emphasize is that there are many treatment programs out there, but not all are good. Just because it's called treatment doesn't mean it's good treatment. There are some awful treatments out there, but there are some very good ones. One nice characteristic of a good treatment program is that the treatment providers are very good at interpersonally motivating people to come to treatment and stay in treatment.
I think that in combination with a good treatment program with good treatment providers and their skill set in motivating clients, the little fear of the electronic monitoring bracelet might be the pivotal aspect that will get them into treatment and help them change into more pro-social citizens. That's what a good program tries to do.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Jasbir Sandhu NDP Surrey North, BC
We can look at a cost-benefit analysis of anything, and Frank touched on the expenses. How does the community benefit from this particular scheme? Does it make our communities safer, or a little more dangerous?
5:20 p.m.
Director, Corrections Research Unit, Department of Public Safety
I think the more medium- and high-risk offenders you can get into treatment and keep in treatment, the safer the communities will be, because sooner or later all these offenders come out of prison. If there's no appropriate treatment given to them, they're going to....
One of my articles talked about prison being like a freezer. They come in, we put them in deep freeze, and then we thaw them out when we release them. There's no change unless you provide very good treatment in prison and unless, as they're being gradually let out under conditional release, you make sure you have that treatment in the community. It's better for the public.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much.
I have to apologize to you, Dr. Bonta, because we've been referring to you as “Mr. Bonta”. There's no “Doctor” in front of your name there, but I will--
5:20 p.m.
Director, Corrections Research Unit, Department of Public Safety
That's okay. It's my wife who insists on that.
5:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I apologize for that.
I'll just say, though, that I believe I am one who's definitely benefited over my life from the psychology of punishment. At a very early age my father explained very clearly to me what would happen if I did certain things; I found out that it did happen and I changed my ways, so that's all good.
5:20 p.m.
Director, Corrections Research Unit, Department of Public Safety
That's my point. Punishment works very well for people like us.
5:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. We won't tell our whips that. They'll use Mr. Garrison's joke from earlier today.
I have a couple of questions. First of all, after listening to you speak, I wonder if this is going to have any effect on the time used up by probation officers or a create a need to increase the number of probation officers. If alarms are coming in, I would hope they would not be answered the next day. Is it going to mean an increase in the resources we need?
5:20 p.m.
Director, Corrections Research Unit, Department of Public Safety
Yes. Earlier, for example, I mentioned a California study that showed a significant percentage of the time is spent on just reviewing the electronic monitoring reports and things like that. There are other studies suggesting that probation officers spend a lot of time on this kind of activity, so yes, you may have to hire more staff, because you need to dedicate them to it. In some situations you may have staff 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and that staffing is on top of regular services.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right.
Another question I have is on the false alarms. Is there any evidence that false alarms would deter or hinder, if not the rehabilitation, perhaps the reintegration into society? Would a false alarm show up against their record? Would the offender fear a false alarm? Maybe there's nothing on that.
5:20 p.m.
Director, Corrections Research Unit, Department of Public Safety
False alarms create two things. When police or the probation officers show up for a false alarm--which could be because of a low battery that the offender forgot to recharge, or something like that--the offender learns that, holy mackerel, an alarm goes off and this happens: they send out people, but they find out there's nothing wrong, so maybe next time they won't send anybody out.
It's the same thing on the probation-parole side. If they have many false alarms, it becomes very confusing for them to know when to treat the alarms seriously. They wonder why they should use up all their time.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I try to be fair in the chair, but I am from a perspective that believes very much in the protection of society. I certainly don't mean that prisons would be a place of punishment, but our rationale for prison is the protection of society.
We aren't necessarily talking about people who would just be out on house arrest or released; we're talking about individuals who could either be in prison or out of prison, but with an electronic monitor. In that respect, it's not about just releasing them onto our streets or into our communities or even to house arrest; it's prison, or perhaps out of prison with an electronic monitor. Which do you think, then, would be the better?
5:25 p.m.
Director, Corrections Research Unit, Department of Public Safety
If you select the right people, what's better is to minimize the time in prison and have them spend more time in the community where they can learn the appropriate pro-social skills.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. Thank you.
We'll try to get back to Mr. Norlock, but good luck. I did take up your time, Mr. Norlock.
We'll go to Mr. Chicoine for four or five minutes.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Sylvain Chicoine NDP Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
Okay.
In Canada, the only experiments that took place were, I think, pilot projects. Do you think that it's still worthwhile to do pilot projects, or that it's already been conclusive and it's not worth continuing those types of projects?