Rocket Talk: When's the TTC Going to Roll Out More Fare Collection Methods?
Newsstand: November 9, 2009
Zack Taylor in Disney Mama Drama
The Daily Photoist: November 9, 2009
Elsewhere in the Ist-a-Verse
Every week (or so), two Torontoist staffers square off to debate an issue that's important to our city. We invite our readers to join the debate in the comments section following the post.
Stories about young people and guns have become so commonplace in our city that it is almost difficult to find them shocking any more. In the latest incident, three people were shot at a house party in Scarborough. A seventeen-year-old boy was killed. The suspect is a fourteen-year-old boy who turned himself into police after they received special dispensation to release his name and picture to the public.
Just a few days before the shooting, CTV obtained a cabinet memo suggesting that the Harper government is considering several changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The heart of these changes would mean that violent or repeat young offenders would be much more likely to be tried and sentenced as adults. Is this a move in the right direction? Read on as Torontoist addresses this issue.
PATRICK METZGER It’s time for the legal system to take a firmer hand with the hard core of juveniles who are chronic offenders and violent criminals. Revenge isn’t the reason, although people who’ve been victims of violent crime could be forgiven for being in the mood for some primitive retributive justice. No, the principal reason is that such a measure, as outlined, will achieve the desired goal – a reduction in youth crime – without harming the vast majority of youth who come in contact with the criminal justice system. The public opinion pendulum on young criminals tends towards regular, predictable swings, from “there’s no such thing as a bad kid” to “let’s hang the little bastards”. The latter theme usually emerges after some particularly hideous and well-publicized crime, when the cry goes up that the youth justice system “coddles” young criminals, by not sending them to prison often enough, or for long enough, or by not ensuring that the experience is brutal enough. That argument is generally specious, as statistics demonstrate that for a majority of juvenile offenders, rehabilitation is more effective than punishment in preventing recidivism. Neither pleasing a fickle public with constantly changing laws, nor treating all young offenders the same, will address the problem of youth crime. However, the proposed changes do not address that majority of offenders who may find themselves in the system once or twice for relatively minor offenses. The plan as outlined is specifically targeted at creating a preferred option of adult sentencing for repeat criminals, or those who are convicted of serious violent crimes such as murder or aggravated sexual assault. Statistics show that chronic offenders (five or more incidents) comprise only 16% of young offenders, but are responsible for 60% of courtroom activity. It would appear that the recidivism boat has already sailed for these kids, and at some point public safety must outweigh their “right” to get a quick release back into the community on the unlikely assumption that this time they’ve finally been cured of their antisocial tendencies. A similar principle applies with regard to violent criminals, who tend to have an entirely different – and far more dangerous – psychological makeup than those convicted of property or drug offences. While it is uncertain whether there is a meaningful deterrent effect that emerges from imposing harsher sentences for violent crimes, especially with juveniles, it can be stated categorically that a violent criminal in jail is less of a threat than one who is armed and on the street. It’s really just about common sense. | KEN HUNT Recipe for appearing tough on crime (adapted from Stephen Harper’s Family Values Cooking Guide): Take one fourteen-year-old kid from a poverty-stricken home. Sprinkle his neighbourhood liberally with guns and make his most important role models the drug dealers and gang members who appear to rule his small world. Next, cut any programme that might give that kid more positive role models, or even just something to do with his time. Now wait for the kid to inevitably screw up. Finally, nail him to the wall and serve to an eager public. Don’t get me wrong. I am not the sort who believes that any kid can be turned around with a hug, a little kindness, and a nicer place to place basketball. These are difficult problems and there are few easy answers, but there’s one simple fact that we don’t acknowledge very often in these debates: almost every kid, rich or poor, will screw up badly at some point in his or her young life. A big part of being a teenager is making bad decisions and learning from them. Middle class kids take their parents cars without permission, they drive recklessly, they drink, try drugs, have unprotected sex, shoplift, etc. Most of the time, they get away with this stuff and nothing really bad happens. That’s a good thing. After all, these are not bad kids: these are just teenagers acting out in all the ways available to them as members of the middle-class. Add poverty, guns, and gangs to that mix and those same kids would suddenly have many more ways to seriously screw up. It’s not the kids who are different, just the numbers of avenues open to them for wrecking their lives. I am not equating murder with taking your mom's car without permission, but, if we're honest with ourselves and remember what it is like to be a teenager, then maybe we can realize that it's easy to make just about any bad decision at that age. If we can remember that, then maybe we can temper justice with compassion. The main reason we treat young offenders differently than adults is because we realize that minors don’t have the capacity to make rational, considered decisions in the same way that adults do. The seriousness of a crime is no indication that it was committed by someone with adult capacity and just because someone does something bad as a kid, that doesn’t mean that the rest of their life will be a ruin. The message that crime is unacceptable is an important one, there’s no doubt about that. Kids need to know that bad choices have grave consequences. That’s the way they learn. But there is another message that we need to send as well: that just because you screw up early in life, that doesn’t mean that you can’t turn things around. Redemption, rehabilitation, and hope should be at the core of the system when dealing with young offenders. |
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Reckless driving is not an acceptable form of "acting out." It endangers the lives not only of the braindead driver and his or her unfortunate passengers, but the lives of other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. Putting innocent people in danger isn't normal. It's offensive, immoral, and above all, criminal.
Let me state that this debate has been going on for a very, very long time. There are ancient Greek texts that talk about the problems of youth and crime and the fact that we are still debating it thousands of years later only proves how complex an issue it is.
Of course reckless driving is not acceptable. My point is not that is acceptable, my point is that it is common. Many of us have driven recklessly as youths, or at least been in cars with people who were. But, there is almost no one out there saying that kids who drive recklessly have deep set personality problems and that they should be tried as adults and spend the rest of their lives in jail.
In general, we as a society are far more forgiving when a teenager kills someone with a car than we are when a teenager kills someone with a gun. We see the kid who drives dangerously as an irresponsible teenager in need of a firm hand, but we see the kid with a gun as an irredeemable menace to society. At heart though, these kids aren't much different. They should be treated equally, with sternness, but also with the compassion that their young age demands.
I was simply surprised to see reckless driving among a list of things teenagers do that I couldn't care less about, including unsafe sex, since many of those are activities whose ill effects are generally largely confined to the individual and their private circle. I just don't believe it belongs there.
But I do realize I've gotten off-topic, so I apologize for that.
The greatest flaw in Patrick's arguement for longer terms is the expectation that it will make our communities safer. All it does is increase the amount of money we spend on prisons.
Whether you lock a 17 year old up for 1, 5 or 25 years, they will still be out of jail with the vast majority of their life in front of them.
But do you think that while in jail they've had the opportunity to learn about becoming an upstanding citizen or a better criminal? Based on the lives of people who I know that have been in contact with the justice system as youths, I'm inclined to believe the latter.
Punishment has to fit the crime but it isn't in the public interest to level a purely puinitive measure against an offender. I'd prefer an emphasis on rehabilitation so that instead of being dropped off at a TTC stop with nothing more than a TTC token in their pocket and the clothes on their back a person released from jail has the chance to do something positive in society.
Plus, providing post-release support for a person who has served time would be far less expensive than the cost of putting them back in jail.
The crux of my argument is that there are certain people - young or old - who have proven themselves essentially beyond rehabilitation, at least within our current system. In my view anyone who's been in court 6 times between the ages of 14 and 17 no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt(keep in mind that these kids would have to be damn unlucky to be getting caught, let alone tried, every time they break the law, so their actual criminal footprint is probably much larger).
They may still be criminals when they get out, but at least while they're in prison they're not hurting anyone.
If you can find an effective way to rehabilitate these hardcore offenders, more power to you, but as shaun pointed out, this debate has been going on for a long time.
Adam C-F wrote "Punishment has to fit the crime but it isn't in the public interest to level a purely punitive [spelling corrected] measure against an offender."
What exactly would non-punitive punishment be? How is punishment not purely punitive? (Hint: "puni_")
Thanks for your insight, GH.
I didn't say that the punishment shouldn't be punitive. If it wasn't clear "(not) purely punitive" was to mean that there should be something more than just punishment involved in incarcerating a criminal.
Call it value-added punishment if you like.
By this I mean that the criminal will be obliged to serve their sentence as usual but that they would also have to compose a release plan. The release plan/process might help them get a SIN card, photo ID, welfare, added to the affordable housing list, into a job search program, et cetera.
It wouldn't stop every criminal from re-offending but even if the recidivism rate dropped by a few percentage points I'm sure we'd be saving money (the cost of police hours, courts, incarceration and impact on the victims has to be less than hiring a bunch of counsellors/social workers). And I suppose you could add any taxable income that is earned by a rehabilitated criminal
Patrick, I would argue that in the current justice system people who are incarcerated are given little if any support that could be described as rehabilitation. So it seems unfair to say that they're beyond rehabilitation if we haven't actually tried. Rehabilitation is more than just learning from an extended "time-out."
But if you feel that some people are, essentially, a ticking time bomb (or the current system is so abysmal that it renders people as such), would you advocate a system like the 'three strikes' policy or relaxing the standards for applying a "dangerous offender" label? Something else?
Thanks for your insight, GH.
I didn't say that the punishment shouldn't be punitive. If it wasn't clear "(not) purely punitive" was to mean that there should be something more than just punishment involved in incarcerating a criminal.
Call it value-added punishment if you like.
By this I mean that the criminal will be obliged to serve their sentence as usual but that they would also have to compose a release plan. The release plan/process might help them get a SIN card, photo ID, welfare, added to the affordable housing list, into a job search program, et cetera.
It wouldn't stop every criminal from re-offending but even if the recidivism rate dropped by a few percentage points I'm sure we'd be saving money (the cost of police hours, courts, incarceration and impact on the victims has to be less than hiring a bunch of counsellors/social workers). And I suppose you could add any taxable income that is earned by a rehabilitated criminal
Patrick, I would argue that in the current justice system people who are incarcerated are given little if any support that could be described as rehabilitation. So it seems unfair to say that they're beyond rehabilitation if we haven't actually tried. Rehabilitation is more than just learning from an extended "time-out."
But if you feel that some people are, essentially, a ticking time bomb (or the current system is so abysmal that it renders people as such), would you advocate a system like the 'three strikes' policy or relaxing the standards for applying a "dangerous offender" label? Something else?
"But if you feel that some people are, essentially, a ticking time bomb (or the current system is so abysmal that it renders people as such), would you advocate a system like the 'three strikes' policy or relaxing the standards for applying a "dangerous offender" label? Something else?"
Something, yes, although I don't claim to be a criminologist so I'm not going to go too far out on that limb. However, I'm convinced that some people, through whatever unfortunate combinations of genes and circumstances, are essentially beyond help, at least with current rehabilitative measures. In those cases, I'm prepared to settle for keeping them away from the more peaceful segment of society.
The key, of course is identifying those people, which will always be controversial.However, as I said above, lacking a magic identifier I'm prepared to assume that any kid who gets hauled into court on serious charges 5 or more times needs to be sentenced to some meaningful time in the corner to think about what he (or she, but almost always he) has done.
Although this is addressed to Mr. Harper, others are of course encouraged to comment.
Dear Mr. Harper:
As a politician running for the position for our Prime Minister I understand that it is your duty to act in a professional manner to all questions regarding statements you have made during your campaign, especially those pertaining to platforms you intend to impose upon Canadians if you are reelected. As such, it is my hope that you will stop what you are doing right now and fully focus on these questions and statements I have prepared for you, and answer them completely as though answering a final exam question that you needed to ace in order to graduate.
It is, I am sure, a hard role to play being a politician running to be reelected as Canada’s Prime Minister. You must act as a scholar on all subjects which come up as concerns for the population which you want to represent. However, I know as well as you do, that it is impossible for any one person to be an expert on all the issues Canadians are concerned with. This being said, I will safely assume that you are provided with much of the information you speak of by your advisors. Even with the amount of work that these people do for you in order to provide you with the best research they can find and the most thoroughly thought through and well laid out answers to the problems pertinent to our society, I would hope, Mr. Harper, that you yourself would go over everything also to make sure that the information you are providing is not false.
I mention this as I am intensely concerned about the amendments you have proposed to make to the young offenders act and laws surrounding it. I am concerned because it seems you have been misinformed about rehabilitation and deterrence and how it works, or does not work, in the real world.
If you had spoken to criminologists, sociologists, psychologists, clinical psychologists, those who work with young offenders, those who work at rehabilitation centers, and countless researchers in the same fields, you would have, Mr. Harper, found that what you are proposing with increased sentences and tougher laws and less say for judges, (with the increase of minimum sentences) will without a doubt magnify the problem of youth crime and violence 10 times and over.
Those victims you brought with you yesterday as you spoke of your plans to “get tough on violent youth crime” are only going to be hurt more by your plans. In fact, there will be an increase of lives ruined and families torn apart by your amendments.
If you had, Mr. Harper, looked at the research relating to your ideas on tough on crime strategies you could have easily found many research studies disputing your supposedly forward moving initiatives. General deterrence, which is what you talk about when you say that you want to make an example out of young people convicted of violent crimes by sentencing them to longer and tougher sentences and displaying their names, does not work. Making an example out of one individual in order to stop others from committing the same crime especially in the cases of violent crime such as murder, sexual assault and other violent assaults has been shown time and again to not be a deterrent of crime.
It is true that there has been an increase of youth arrested for violent crimes, however, you must pay careful attention to those words. An arrest does not mean that the individual participated in the actual act of murder or rape, or other vicious acts which you so often felt the need to identify yesterday in your speech.
In fact, the Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview from 2006 charted the crimes committed by youth. Violent crime have been steady since about 1991 and in fact property offenses (the most frequent offenses committed by youth) have gone down as have the total number of offenses (both of which are at the lowest rate they have shown since at least 1986, where the data begins). Between 2003-2004 homicide and related offences accounted for only 0.06% of all youth cases, sexual assault and offences only 2.3% and major assault was represented at 6.7%.
Do not forget that the media has a way of making crime seem more prevalent than it is, and than it used to be. There are more media outlets, more accesses to information, more scrapples to get the most attention grabbing stories and give the most gruesome details. Crime is not on the rise despite what our emotions may tell us, because all the information we get is from the media, which surrounds us with endless images designed to shock us. It is not our fault that our emotions are misleading, even those who are educated in crime can be taken off guard by the media and become afraid. But we mustn’t let our fears dictate what is true.
***PLEASE CONTINUE TO READ***
I realize that you are focusing on violent youth crime, however, since the majority of youth crime is non-violent the increase of 30% which you have quoted is slightly misleading. I would like to add here that I would also be very interested to see the papers documenting this fact in order to read them for myself (I do not like to believe things blindly).
Even if violent offenses committed by youth are on the rise, the stance of tough on crime will in no way be a deterrent. Mr. Harper, you should know that taking your crime strategies from the United States will not benefit Canada. With 714 people being incarcerated for every 100,000 the US has the highest incarceration rate of all the Western European Countries; it is blown off the charts with New Zealand trailing behind in second place with only 168 per 100,000. Tough on crime initiatives has not reduced the amount of crime found in the States. For instance, in those areas which capital punishment remains, murder is still committed.
Incarcerating youth for longer periods of time will not help them to rehabilitate back into society better, it will only tell them they’ve done something wrong and society is going to punish them for it. Although some may argue this is the impression we want to leave on youth, it does not help the situation. Most youth know that violence is wrong; that murder, sexual assault, assault with a weapon, etc. is not acceptable. Those few who do not fully understand this could have a mental illness which prevents them from seeing reason (making punishment useless), or could have been abused at a younger age and have grown up believing it is common practice or acceptable in certain situations.
So what is left to do? Studies have shown that those individuals (youth in particular) benefit dramatically from programs provided in the community, the Compendium 2000 on Effective Correctional Programming, argues that those programs for youth delivered in the community proved more success than those given in residence. Other studies have additionally argued that cognitively based programs delivered in the community have shown a higher percentage of success than those provided while in custody. This is so important because youth are influenced by family, peers, and the environment. If they are not directed on how to make prosocial choices in the real world then rehabilitation will be unsuccessful once they are faced with making these decisions.
I fully support the idea of funding more programs committed to rehabilitating youth as well as those which focus on directing youth on the right path before the criminal lifestyle prevails. However, I need to not just know funding will be provided to rehabilitate youth, I need to know what foundations you, Mr. Harper, are going to fund; what the goals of these programs are; how they provide the programs; and to who they provide them to; and further more what their records of rehabilitation have shown.
Canada currently imprisons more youth than even the United States, yet we have a larger problem with youth violence. Throwing youth in jail for longer harsher sentences is a band aide solution. It does not deal with the real issues or attack the heart of the problem, which must be done if we are to reduce the amount of violent crime committed by youth. If we are going to help our children change their ways and to choose prosocial lifestyles as apposed to those filled with crime we must tackle the real problems; we must get to the root of the issues. Problems can occur when parents cannot spend enough time with their children, when they have to work all the time, when youth cannot afford to engage in safe and fun activities with their free time. When individuals respond to youth with violence and disrespect they will return the favour. Many young individuals have been abused physically, sexually, and verbally, causing them to lash out or seek refuge in those individuals who influence them the wrong way, or turn to drugs which are often found to be a contributor to violence crimes.
If you want to fight crime you need to fight it at the start by providing help Mr. Harper, not with punishment. These background stories are not excuses for violence against others, they are real problems currently without practical solutions. They are only excuses to you Mr. Harper. You are using violent youth as excuses for a few extra votes. Tough on crime is not the answer, it is just a part of the problem which a large portion of us in society buy into, and you are feeding this flame. Do not use people’s fears to buy votes, do not use their sadness to encourage the wrong decisions and vengeance, do not act as though you know what is best when you have not done the research necessary to make the decisions you are so boldly proposing. How dare you use our emotions against us Mr. Harper.
You say you want to focus on rehabilitation as part of your plan, yet you want to publish the names of those individuals who have been convicted for violent offenses and some repeat offenses. This will only hurt their chances of being rehabilitated. Who will hire or trust that individual enough to give them a second chance after their name and face has been flashed across every media outlet in the country? How will they be able to start over? How will they get a job or an education or a home? Where will they turn when they are trying to change their life? Try to get on the right track when no one will give you a chance. A return to a life of crime and dependence is inevitable for these individuals.
As a last point, if none of these other issues have gotten you thinking that this plan does not seem right anymore, think about the issue in a fiscal sense. More people in federal penitentiaries for longer periods of time means a substantially larger amount of taxpayers’ money will be spent on prisoners being sent to institutions. In 2004-2005 the average cost per year to keep one male inmate in prison was $85,927; this is about half of what it costs for one woman prisoner, which was recorded as being $166,642 a year/inmate in 2004-2005.
Mr. Harper, keeping in mind that rehabilitation is much more effective in the community and that the cost of offenders being kept in prison is so high…why would we want to spend more money to keep them in longer?
Mr. Harper, I hope you have thoroughly read through this letter with an open mind to what I have said here. I hope that you will do the research which I have told you is out there. I hope also that everyone who believes that crime could affect them or their loves ones does the same. Mr. Harper, I feel strongly one should never blindly accept anything someone says, but after a critical and through look, if the research adds up, and is consistent the majority of the time…sometimes it’s a good idea to trust it.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
A concerned citizen of Canada.