The system isn't broken, but with proper planning and appropriate allocation of resources, it could do much better

Politics is getting in the way of crime prevention

Columnist Dan Gardner ("What crime stats don't tell us," July 21) is half right when he says that "crime trends are not driven by criminal justice policies." They are driven by enacting mutually exclusive, politically motivated policies and practices. Of all the hot-button issues in politics, arguably none is more purposely distorted and manipulated than crime and its impact on public safety. The hard-right line linking punishment to eradication is at best a very simple answer to an increasingly complicated problem. The left's marrying of socio-economic circumstances to crime is equally facile.

While both camps scratch the surface of reality, political entrenchment based on identified constituencies has prevented either side of the political spectrum from embracing balance and objectivity. On any given day in Canada, approximately 125,000 people are assigned to some form of community supervision. An additional 25,000 to 30,000 individuals are incarcerated, either serving sentences or awaiting trials.

The system isn't broken, but with proper planning and appropriate allocation of resources, it could do much better. The key is to separate fact from emotion and continue to embrace Canadian values based on balance, fairness and cost-effectiveness.

The objective of managing crime and its real and perceived impact on public safety requires an integrated and targeted approach. To achieve full citizenry, people must not only be safe, they must feel safe enough to fully participate in every aspect of community life. Perception is as important as reality. When prevention, intervention and enforcement (PIE) are pursued together -- as opposed to the traditional silo approach -- they are the keys to successful crime management, offender habilitation and public safety.

Policy aimed at satisfying an identified constituency usually results in an overindulgence of one of these approaches at the expense of the other two. Political leaders who purposely focus on crime as a wedge issue conveniently distort reality and risk perpetuation of the status quo. While politicians may gain votes, communities all across Canada are sacrificed for the sake of political pandering.

Prevention is an often-used but misunderstood concept. It is usually considered in terms of program development aimed at specific target groups, commonly related to socio-economic circumstances. Prevention should be a cradle-to-grave proposition. Those who engage in antisocial behaviour are considered outside the parameters of the mainstream. It should come as no surprise that these individuals consider themselves in a similar fashion.

A review of the literature clearly indicates that the No. 1 risk factor associated with antisocial behaviour in youth is inconsistent parenting. Not peers, poverty, or even bad parenting scores as high when predicting potential for misbehaviour. Fortunately, at-risk children can be identified early in the school system. Unfortunately, cost cutting has drastically reduced necessary interventions for both children and their families. Prevention is inextricably linked to education and the promotion of pro-social skills. It must occur early in a child's life and be reinforced through opportunity.

When debate turns to crime prevention or reduced recidivism, the term "rehabilitate" is often used inappropriately. In many circumstances, "habilitate" would be the appropriate term, teaching pro-social and life skills to a segment of the population that never learned them. Intervention has traditionally included counselling, supervision and incarceration. Clearly intervention has been employed as an after-the-fact methodology when attempting to control antisocial behaviour. More attention must be paid to interventions prior to the commission of crimes. In that regard, education, recreation and employment strategies are net positive interventions.

Legislators must also focus on constructing a penal system that focuses on cognitive intervention and offender skill development during incarceration. It makes absolutely no sense to detain for the sole reason of punishment. The majority of offenders are eventually released back into our communities and for that reason rehabilitation or habilitation is an integral piece of the corrections puzzle.

Enforcement is easily the least understood of the three variables. Those who advocate the merits of this principle also lobby for tougher sentences, believing that general and specific deterrence has a positive impact on crime and recidivism. Effective enforcement does not end with the hiring of more police officers, but rather recognizes the co-ordinated efforts of all criminal justice professionals and practitioners working together. Enforcement must also take into account that each case is unique. Sometimes referred to as the "yeah, buts" of criminology, enforcement at the sentencing stage considers mitigating factors associated with each individual.

Take for example mandatory minimum sentencing for gun crimes. Should a woman who uses a gun against a spouse after years of abuse be sentenced by the same standard as a drug dealer who guns down a shopkeeper? Is drug addiction a crime or an illness? Should the mentally ill be treated differently than those not afflicted?

The obvious answer to these questions discounts the cookie-cutter approach to sentencing. In this regard appropriate enforcement determines the type of intervention required. Prevention, intervention and enforcement are the basis for successful public safety policy. By remaining in our silos, bunkered by ideology and political rhetoric, we will continue to produce familiar outcomes and election-time hyperbole. Lives will be lost or wasted, a nation will occasionally lament, the pendulum of policy will swing and yet little will change. That is a crime that must be prevented. It is as easy as PIE. NUPGE

Bob Eaton, Probation officer, Web posted by NUPGE
16 August 2006

http://www.nupge.ca/news_2006/n16au06z.htm

 
home / Previous viewpoint