11

Thinking About Crime:Thinking About Crime:Goals for the Near FutureGoals for the Near Future

Anthony N. DoobAnthony N. DoobCentre of CriminologyCentre of CriminologyUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Toronto

Canadian Criminal Justice AssociationCanadian Criminal Justice AssociationCongress: HalifaxCongress: Halifax29 October 200929 October 2009

2

The Agenda The Agenda (Conclusions)(Conclusions)

Address crime problems where it mattersAddress crime problems where it matters Don’t focus on the criminal justice systemDon’t focus on the criminal justice system

Keep ‘recent’ patterns in mind when considering optionsKeep ‘recent’ patterns in mind when considering options Serious problems with ‘deterrence’ and ‘incapacitation’ Serious problems with ‘deterrence’ and ‘incapacitation’

models of crime controlmodels of crime control Don’t focus solely on ‘early detection’ as Don’t focus solely on ‘early detection’ as thethe solution solution Punishment/imprisonment doesn’t explain ‘crime’Punishment/imprisonment doesn’t explain ‘crime’

Controlling imprisonmentControlling imprisonment Canada’s historyCanada’s history Current problems (remand)Current problems (remand)

Address real problemsAddress real problems Sentencing (including conditional release)Sentencing (including conditional release) Think about ‘crime’ and ‘punishment’ separatelyThink about ‘crime’ and ‘punishment’ separately

3

Start by looking at crimeStart by looking at crime

Jurisdictional variation within Jurisdictional variation within CanadaCanada

No evidence of important increases – No evidence of important increases – though look carefully at variation though look carefully at variation across provinces/ territories (and across provinces/ territories (and cities, and locations within cities?)cities, and locations within cities?) Crime ‘is’ local – neighbourhood effectsCrime ‘is’ local – neighbourhood effects Provincial (and more local) variationProvincial (and more local) variation

4

Total Crime Rate (per 100,000 residents)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008

Canada NS ON SK

5

Total Violence (per 100,000 residents)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008

Canada NS ON SK

6

"Crime Severity Index"

0

50

100

150

200

250

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Canada NS ON SK

7

Addressing Crime: Addressing Crime: PopularPopular Approaches (1) Approaches (1)

Deterrence by way of harsher sentencesDeterrence by way of harsher sentences Studies on changes in sentencingStudies on changes in sentencing Studies on knowledge of relative severityStudies on knowledge of relative severity

Impaired drivingImpaired driving The new 5 year minimum sentencesThe new 5 year minimum sentences

The logic of the deterrent impact of harsher sentencesThe logic of the deterrent impact of harsher sentences Thinking about consequences of being punishedThinking about consequences of being punished Perceive reasonable likelihood of apprehension and offend rather Perceive reasonable likelihood of apprehension and offend rather

than focus on avoiding apprehensionthan focus on avoiding apprehension Even if expect ‘normal punishment’ would offendEven if expect ‘normal punishment’ would offend Know about the increase in punishmentKnow about the increase in punishment Would have offended ‘for lower penalty’ – not for ‘increased’ Would have offended ‘for lower penalty’ – not for ‘increased’

penaltypenalty Be careful about ‘testimonials’ from anyone on general Be careful about ‘testimonials’ from anyone on general

or specific deterrenceor specific deterrence

8

Addressing Crime: Addressing Crime: PopularPopular Approaches (2)Approaches (2)

IncapacitationIncapacitation Distribution of crimeDistribution of crime Be wary of the assertion ‘majority of crime committed by Be wary of the assertion ‘majority of crime committed by

small portion of people’small portion of people’ Only those apprehendedOnly those apprehended Always retrospective assertionsAlways retrospective assertions

Intervention in the lives of ‘at risk’ youthsIntervention in the lives of ‘at risk’ youths problem of identifyingproblem of identifying crime is broadly distributedcrime is broadly distributed focus of policy vs. work on the individualfocus of policy vs. work on the individual analogy with disease: prevention vs. treatmentanalogy with disease: prevention vs. treatment

Could these account for the patterns of crime in the Could these account for the patterns of crime in the past 20 years?past 20 years?

9

The public policy debate on The public policy debate on addressing crimeaddressing crime

““Tough or not”Tough or not” Inherently useless debateInherently useless debate Not driven by factsNot driven by facts Would never tolerate it in areas like healthWould never tolerate it in areas like health

Rarely deals with empirical realitiesRarely deals with empirical realities Almost never deals with ‘opportunity Almost never deals with ‘opportunity

costs’costs’ AvoidsAvoids

Real problems of crime and crime preventionReal problems of crime and crime prevention Real debates/ issues (e.g., opportunity costs)Real debates/ issues (e.g., opportunity costs)

10

Looking at “punishment”Looking at “punishment” in the context of “crime” in the context of “crime”

Comparisons (on crime and Comparisons (on crime and punishment)punishment)

Not ‘ideal’ sophisticated researchNot ‘ideal’ sophisticated research Helps put assertions in contextHelps put assertions in context

11

Overall Crime Rates: Canada and U.S.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Can

ada:

Cri

mes

per

100

0

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

US

: In

dex

Cri

mes

per

10

0K

Canada: Total Crime per 1000 Residents, Canada

USA: Overall Index Crime Rate per 100K residents

12

Homicide Rates: Canada and U.S.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Can

ada:

Rat

e p

er 1

00K

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

US

: R

ate

per

100

K

Canada US

13

England & Wales, Crime Rates

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

2500019

5019

6019

7019

8019

8119

8219

8319

8419

8519

8619

8719

8819

8919

9019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

0220

03

Ra

te p

er

10

0K

Total Offences per 100K

Total Offences per 100K, New Method

Violent Offences per 100K x 10

Violent Offences per 100K x 10, New Method

14

England & Wales, Imprisonment per 100K Residents

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

15

USA: Prison Counts per 100K Residents

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1925

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

U.S: State & Federal Prisons U.S.: Total (State, Federal, Jail)

16

Total Imprisonment (per 100K residents)1890-2007

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1890 1900 1930 1940 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

17

Imprisonment (Canada) Counts

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Pris

on P

opul

atio

n P

er 1

00K

Res

iden

ts

Total Rate Federal Rate Provincial Rate

18

Imprisonment Rates (Per 100K Residents) in the U.S., Canada, and England & Wales

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1925

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Pris

oner

s pe

r 10

0K R

esid

ents

U.S: State & Federal Prisons (only) U.S.: Total (State, Federal, Jail)

Canada England&Wales

19

What does “stability” What does “stability” mean?mean?

Types of prisoners (sentenced, Types of prisoners (sentenced, remand)remand)

Distribution of prisoners across Distribution of prisoners across jurisdictions (provinces/ territories)jurisdictions (provinces/ territories)

Relative number of prisoners in Relative number of prisoners in provincial and federal institutionsprovincial and federal institutions

Trends and provincial policiesTrends and provincial policies

20

Canada: Components of Provincial Prison Counts

(Rates per 100,000 Residents)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006

Prov. Total Prov. Sentenced Prov. Remand

21

Remand Rate per 100,000 Residents (2007)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Prince Edward Island

Newfoundland

New Brunswick

Nova Scotia

Quebec

British Columbia

CANADA

Ontario

Alberta

Saskatchewan

Manitoba

22

Percent of Provincial Prisoners Not Sentenced (2007)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Prince Edward Island

Newfoundland

New Brunswick

Saskatchewan

Quebec

Nova Scotia

British Columbia

CANADA

Alberta

Ontario

Manitoba

23

Total Provincial Imprisonment Rate (2007)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Nova Scotia

New Brunswick

Newfoundland

Quebec

British Columbia

Ontario

CANADA

Alberta

Prince Edward Island

Manitoba

Saskatchewan

24

Provincial Imprisonment (Counts) per 100K Residents

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Canada Nova Scotia Ontario Saskatchewan Alberta

25

2006 Platform (Federal 2006 Platform (Federal Conservatives)Conservatives)

“Stand up for Canada…“Stand up for Canada…“Stand up for Security”“Stand up for Security”

““A Conservative government will protect our A Conservative government will protect our communities from crime by insisting on tougher communities from crime by insisting on tougher sentences for serious and repeat crime and by sentences for serious and repeat crime and by tightening parole….tightening parole….

““A Conservative government willA Conservative government will Introduce mandatory minimum prison sentences for… Introduce mandatory minimum prison sentences for…

weapons offences….weapons offences…. End conditional sentences for serious crimes…End conditional sentences for serious crimes… Work for a constitutional amendment to forbid Work for a constitutional amendment to forbid

prisoners in federal institutions from voting in elections.prisoners in federal institutions from voting in elections. [and 11 other items in the area of crime][and 11 other items in the area of crime]

26

Themes in Government Press Releases Related Themes in Government Press Releases Related to Specific Bills (2006-7 – 39to Specific Bills (2006-7 – 39thth Parliament, 1 Parliament, 1stst

Session) Session)

““Our new government has made Our new government has made safesafe streets and streets and communities a key priority…(C-9)communities a key priority…(C-9)

““We will restore confidence… and make our streets We will restore confidence… and make our streets safersafer…” (C-10)…” (C-10)

““It is time to implement effective preventative It is time to implement effective preventative measures to measures to safeguardsafeguard communities..” (C-27) communities..” (C-27)

““ProtectingProtecting our children and youth from sexual our children and youth from sexual exploitation is a key priority….” (C-22)exploitation is a key priority….” (C-22)

““Strengthening sentencing measures… prohibiting Strengthening sentencing measures… prohibiting [conditional sentences] for those convicted of [conditional sentences] for those convicted of impaired driving causing…(C-23)impaired driving causing…(C-23)

““Protecting Protecting Canadians must be the first priority of Canadians must be the first priority of our bail system… (C-35)our bail system… (C-35)

27

Federal Crime Legislation, 2Federal Crime Legislation, 2ndnd Session, Session, 3939thth Parliament [October 2007 to Parliament [October 2007 to

September 2008]September 2008]

Tough on CrimeTough on Crime C-2: “Tackling Violent Crime Bill” C-2: “Tackling Violent Crime Bill”

(Mandatory Minimum sentences, age of (Mandatory Minimum sentences, age of consent, drug impaired driving, bail, consent, drug impaired driving, bail, dang. offenders) – dang. offenders) – Royal AssentRoyal Assent

C-25: Youth Criminal Justice Act: C-25: Youth Criminal Justice Act: Deterrence and Denunciation; Bail.Deterrence and Denunciation; Bail.

C-26: Drug: Mandatory MinimumsC-26: Drug: Mandatory Minimums

28

C-2: Mandatory C-2: Mandatory MinimumMinimum

Press release: “The use of a firearm in Press release: “The use of a firearm in committing a serious offence committing a serious offence will be subject will be subject to a significant sentenceto a significant sentence. If, for example, an . If, for example, an offence is gang related, or if a restricted or offence is gang related, or if a restricted or prohibited firearm such as a handgun is prohibited firearm such as a handgun is used, the minimum penalty will beused, the minimum penalty will be 5 years5 years on a first offence….” on a first offence….”

No mentionNo mention Current 4 year minimumCurrent 4 year minimum Absence of change for rifles, shotgunsAbsence of change for rifles, shotguns

29

Conservative Platform, Conservative Platform, October 2008October 2008

“Protecting the safety & security of “Protecting the safety & security of Canadians”Canadians” Prevent gangsPrevent gangs

Responsibility & Rehabilitation for YOs – deterrence based Responsibility & Rehabilitation for YOs – deterrence based sentencingsentencing

Replace automatic release with earned paroleReplace automatic release with earned parole Ending House Arrest for Serious CrimesEnding House Arrest for Serious Crimes Eliminating the ‘Faint hope’ clauseEliminating the ‘Faint hope’ clause Getting tough with gangs and org. crimeGetting tough with gangs and org. crime Allowing Canadian victims to sue terroristsAllowing Canadian victims to sue terrorists Mandatory minimums on drug offencesMandatory minimums on drug offences Protecting pregnant women against violenceProtecting pregnant women against violence Tougher penalties for Impaired – deathTougher penalties for Impaired – death End ineffective long-gun registryEnd ineffective long-gun registry All sex offenders in national registry, DNA sampling,All sex offenders in national registry, DNA sampling,

30

Will these make us safe?Will these make us safe?Empirical evidence:Empirical evidence:

““Deterrence based sentencing”Deterrence based sentencing” Controlled re-entry of prisonersControlled re-entry of prisoners Harsher sentencesHarsher sentences Mandatory minimumsMandatory minimums Registration (DNA, Sex offender Registration (DNA, Sex offender

registries)registries)

31

Final Example: C-25Final Example: C-25“Truth in Sentencing Act” “Truth in Sentencing Act”

(2009)(2009) Government position: 1 day credit off Government position: 1 day credit off

sentence for each day in presentence custodysentence for each day in presentence custody Justice Minister on the need to pass this bill: Justice Minister on the need to pass this bill:

“I’m just telling them to fight crime in this “I’m just telling them to fight crime in this country.”country.”

IssueIssue Fighting crimeFighting crime Increasing punitivenessIncreasing punitiveness Reflecting conditions of imprisonmentReflecting conditions of imprisonment Equity (Equivalence of pre- and post-sentence Equity (Equivalence of pre- and post-sentence

timetime

32

Making ‘time’ equivalentMaking ‘time’ equivalent

Typical 90 day sentenceTypical 90 day sentence 30 days of remission30 days of remission Serve 60 days of a 90 day sentenceServe 60 days of a 90 day sentence Credit for time served Credit for time served in sentenced custody: in sentenced custody: 1.5 1.5

days for each day serveddays for each day served

60 days in prison x 1.5 = 90 days sentence60 days in prison x 1.5 = 90 days sentence Imagine a prisoner ‘deserving’ a 90 day Imagine a prisoner ‘deserving’ a 90 day

sentence who has spent 60 days in pretrial sentence who has spent 60 days in pretrial detention.detention. 60 days in pretrial detention x 1.5 = 90 days60 days in pretrial detention x 1.5 = 90 days

““Conditions” muddy the issueConditions” muddy the issue

33

Ultimate problem raised Ultimate problem raised by C-25by C-25

Meaning of a sentence of imprisonmentMeaning of a sentence of imprisonment Time served (in reality) - approximately Time served (in reality) - approximately

1/3 to 2/3 (or in rare cases 100%)1/3 to 2/3 (or in rare cases 100%) Gradual release/ re-entryGradual release/ re-entry

Most to those least in needMost to those least in need Discretionary release almost ‘requires’ risk Discretionary release almost ‘requires’ risk

averse decisionsaverse decisions Contrast with YCJAContrast with YCJA

34

ConclusionConclusion Crime – serious problem not amenable to ‘one-off’ Crime – serious problem not amenable to ‘one-off’

solutionssolutions General social (e.g., schools) policiesGeneral social (e.g., schools) policies Don’t focus on ‘crime prevention’ programs aloneDon’t focus on ‘crime prevention’ programs alone Don’t focus on criminal justice systemDon’t focus on criminal justice system

Punishment and ImprisonmentPunishment and Imprisonment Incoherent set of principles (e.g., sentencing and conditional Incoherent set of principles (e.g., sentencing and conditional

releaserelease Parliament appears not to care about fair, predictable, coherent Parliament appears not to care about fair, predictable, coherent

punishment systempunishment system Punishment (e.g., imprisonment rate) is under policy controlPunishment (e.g., imprisonment rate) is under policy control

Not simply a case of harsh or lenient, tough or soft on Not simply a case of harsh or lenient, tough or soft on crime. crime. Issue: Coherent policyIssue: Coherent policy

Left off the political agenda: Doing something about Left off the political agenda: Doing something about crimecrime

35

EndEnd