The Written Word
for December 8, 1999

The Reform Party thrives on hot button issues and there is no hotter button than the justice system. Let a person on a day-pass commit a crime and, according to Reform’s senior Justice critic John Reynolds, the entire system has gone to hell in a handcart. That’s what makes recent statistics so interesting.

Between 1975 and 1999 11,783 offenders convicted of murder or manslaughter were released from custody. Of those 37 were convicted of further homicidal offences being 0.33%. Mr Reynolds, naturally, calls these figures into question and wants to know how many of these people thereafter led exemplary lives. This is one of those silly trick questions the Reform party like to play with. Why not some other figures how many Canadians overall lead exemplary lives? If there is a higher percentage from this group of 11,783 than the general public and I don’t know whether or not there is could that be because they are easier to apprehend than a first time offender because the police have their eye on them?

What Mr Reynolds doesn’t want to recognize is that 99% of all those convicted get out sometime. Even if we wanted to, we couldn’t possibly keep in custody those we think might re-offend. Some criminals such as narcotics addicts will certainly re-offend. Mayor Philip Owen sets his hair on fire because judges don’t sentence pushers who do so to support their own habit to high enough sentences and usually grant them bail. This is because judges know that these offenders are really small potatoes and are the low rung of the drug trade and they also know that holding them in jail is well nigh impossible because of the shortage of facilities.

Reynolds, Owen and company, playing on public fears to secure votes, ought to be congratulating prison officials, in jail resources and the parole board for doing such a good job.

When we approach the problem of crime we have to apply some common sense. From the outset we must accept that there will be failures and that some of them will be spectacular. If we are not able to accept this, we must then throw everyone who offends in jail forever. Even if we opted for this approach, we haven’t anywhere near enough cells to hold them.

Having decided that every criminal will sooner or later get out we must then decide what gives us the best chance for a law abiding citizen to emerge.

We have experts to help us with this problem though experts are entirely unwelcome in the Owen/Reynolds view of things because experts cannot offer 100% certainty of success in fact, as we’ve seen, they can only deliver 99.7% when it comes to homicides.

Now realistically, homicides are not the figures to look at. Many of them are one time crimes of passion that will never be repeated. But what we have to accept or scrap the entire notion of parole is that a person in jail is much more likely to profit from counseling and other redemptive measures if the offer of early release is there. Hopelessness is a prescription for disaster. Those who have nothing to lose will lose it willingly.

The sad aspect of the Reynolds/Owen hang ‘em high theory is that it prevents a rational look at our parole system and a rational discussion. If the only debate we have is when a Karla Homulka or a Clifford Olson come up for review we have no meaningful debate at all.

We are going to have screw-ups as long as mortals run a system. Karla Homulka is not a Parole Board mistake, however it is the mistake of the prosecution that plea bargained with her so that she would be entitled to early parole. All the Parole Board can do in circumstances like Homulka is delay release as long as possible.

There is need for a nationwide, penetrating debate on the entire justice system but that requires sober, dispassionate consideration not cries of mock outrage every time a mistake is made or the system works less than perfectly.

I believe that we have the best justice system in the world which is a long way short of saying we’re perfect. But, I may be wrong on this. We should find out. But if we’re to set standards for the Justice system in the widest sense of that term that none of us could personally meet than we will make things worse, far worse, than better.