BRIEF TO THE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
HOUSE OF COMMONS
40th Parliament, 4st Session
BILL C-48
An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and make Consequential Amendments
To the National Defence Act
This proposed Act may be cited as the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence
Discounts for Multiple Murders Act
Presented by the Canadian Criminal Justice Association
November, 2010
Background of Canadian Criminal Justice Association
The Canadian Criminal Justice Association (CCJA) welcomes this opportunity to present this brief to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights regarding Bill C-48, an Act to Amend the Criminal Code and make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act - Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act. Our association has reviewed the proposed intent of this amendment and offers our ideas for consideration and incorporation into this new Bill.
The CCJA is one of the longest serving non-governmental organizations of professionals and individuals interested in criminal justice issues in Canada, having begun its work in 1919 and having testified before this committee on numerous occasions. Our association consists of nearly 800 members representing all provinces and territories of Canada as well as all professional areas from policing to courts and correctional services. The CCJA publishes the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, the Justice Report, the Justice Directory of Services, and the Directory of Services for Victims of Crime. We also organize the “Canadian Congress on Criminal Justice” every two years.
History and Relevant Issues Pertaining to Parole Outcomes
Over 100 years ago, the enlightened minds of the day began to examine the long-term social impacts of incarceration and came to the conclusion that a large portion of the offender population could (and should) be released back into the community at varying stages of their incarceration without adversely endangering the community. Public safety and offender responsibility were the major principles addressed in the movement from a Ticket-of-Leave system of offender release to the establishment of the Parole Act (1959) and finally, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) in 1992.
Parole eligibility has remained an important element in the reintegration of the offender and has generally been managed by a gradual release back into the community combined with quality supervision by paroling authorities. In this way public safety has been maintained and is supported by Public Safety Canada in their annual report on Corrections and Conditional Release (2009) which states that 84.5% of offenders released on day parole and 73.4% released on full parole complete their period of release back into the community successfully. When one considers that a large percentage of the failures (12.2% for day parole, 19.2 % for full parole)) were the result of breaches of conditions of parole rather than criminal reoffending, parole supervision is in fact a significant “crime prevention” measure. To further emphasize the success of parole supervision in the community, less than 1% of paroles (0.5% for day parole, 0.8% for full parole) are revoked for the committal of a violent offence while on parole and this rate has dropped significantly during the past decade.
Overview of BILL C-48 Amendments
Currently, an offender convicted of more than one murder is subject to the parole eligibility rules for each offence but these run concurrently, so that ineligibility does not surpass 25 years. Bill C-48 sets in motion the possibility that an offender convicted of more than one murder could have his/her parole eligibility period lengthened by a consecutive order of the court, in essence opening the possibility that the offender would not be eligible before 50 years or more.
The above outcome is not mandatory but rather left open to the elective recommendation of the jury and the eventual acceptance by the presiding judge. In the absence of a recommendation by the jury the presiding judge may make the consecutive order on his/her own. If the court chooses not to intervene in the parole eligibility of the offender, the Act requires that the presiding judge provide the reasons either orally or in writing. The process provides a right of appeal by the accused and prosecutor if they are dissatisfied with the court’s decision on parole eligibility.
Discussion
The Canadian Criminal Justice Association has some concerns with the proposed amendments, especially as they apply to the role of paroling authorities in Canada. In this regard, there is no evidence to indicate that the paroling authorities in Canada have blatantly released multiple murderers back into the community and as a result of their “bad decisions” the community has been endangered.
Under the current provisions of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, offenders serving life sentences do not have to be released and can be held indefinitely – even in situations where they have committed a single murder. This aspect will more than likely be the fate of offenders like Bernardo, Olsen, Pickton and Williams so the legal authority to restrict or deny release in such cases already exists. As such, how will the implementation of consecutive parole eligibility enhance this already apparent outcome? What purpose will it serve and for whom?
Recommendations & Conclusion
The Canadian Criminal Justice Association recommends that BILL C-48 not be enacted until it can be demonstrated that the paroling authorities in Canada are incompetent in dealing with such matters and that legislative intervention is required to manage this outcome. This aspect in itself will have a demoralizing impact on those charged with this responsibility and is contrary to the perception that other countries have regarding the operation of parole in Canada. In this regard, Canada is the envy of many countries that send representatives here to learn from our paroling expertise. BILL C-48 will do little to help maintain that reputation.
As indicated earlier in this submission, lifers can be held indefinitely and while each has a parole eligibility date, timely reviews and hearings before the Parole Board of Canada, there is no statutory requirement that they be released at any time. With this in mind, the Canadian Criminal Justice Association would urge our legislators to expand rather than hinder the authority of Canadian paroling authorities who have so aptly demonstrated their competence over the past number of decades. BILL C-48 does not appear to serve any purpose beyond the need to appear “tough on crime”.
|
