STOPWATCH - March 1994
Two Million Canadians Cannot Be Ignored
by Priscilla de Villiers
It has taken more than two years to gather over two million signatures in
schools, shopping malls, doctors' offices, board rooms and living rooms
across the country. It has been a long road to Ottawa. On the one hand the
journey ended on the 7th of February, 1994, when Beth Phinney, M.P. rose
in the House of Commons to present the last 15,000 signatures on the de
Villiers Petition against violence; on the other hand, an even more arduous
journey has only just begun. It is now that our work really starts. Over
two million Canadians have spoken with one voice sending a clear message
to the Government of Canada that violence is untenable in this society.
Now we demand prompt, effective action.
A petition is the true voice of democracy. It is a way for an individual
to speak directly to Government on an issue that is of particular concern
to them. It is easy to take too lightly the scruffy, dog-eared piles of
paper covered in signatures. Each of those signatures speaks of a personal
experience with an urgency that is only too easy to overlook. So many of
the people who have signed the petition, and who have in turn collected
signatures, have spoken to us in CAVEAT: they have faxed us, telephoned
us or written to us. We see their faces and hear their stories as we count
the signatures.
Margery Tooth, 82, covered the town of Belleville, Ontario, enlisted media
support, and gathered 7,000 signatures. Sadly, she died last year before
she could see the petition presented, but her initiative and determination
to improve society will remain a legacy for generations to come. We heard
from a woman in a community of 300 on Baffin Island as she voiced her concerns
about the rising violence and the need for crime prevention. These were
echoed by a man whose nearest centre was Green Lake, Saskatchewan and a
school teacher in Montreal concerned with rising youth violence. Many petitioners
spoke movingly about their fears for their children and grandchildren and
about the need to work together for their future before it is too late.
Then there are signatures scribbled in horror and torment as yet another
dreadful act of violence threatens the peace and security of yet another
community in some part of Canada. When a 13-year-old boy was dragged off
his bike in broad daylight in a busy city park in Hamilton, Ontario, raped
and sodomized, the telephones started ringing at CAVEAT even before the
media had released the story. His alleged attacker was out on parole at
the time after a previous sexual assault. People who had lived in that area
for three generations desperately needed a way to take some control of their
safety and that of their neighbours.
When Sian Simmonds, 19, was brutally murdered, friends and supporters contacted
CAVEAT. They were outraged by the realisation that her murderer was a contract
killer who was out on bail, charged with a previous murder and who was paid
$3,500 to terrify and destroy an innocent young woman. CAVEAT B.C. grew
out of this horror. Many of the final 15,000 signatures which were presented
on the 7th of February attest to the determination of that community that
our Criminal Justice System be overhauled to reflect our abhorrence of the
gratuitous violence, on the part of a few individuals, which is holding
our communities hostage.
In the last Federal election, although public safety and the criminal justice
system were clearly demonstrated to be of great importance to a great number
of the electorate, little mention was made of this issue in the campaign
speeches across the country. It will take great political will to make a
serious attempt to overhaul an outdated and overburdened system which is
still promoting an ideology which flies in the face of the changing pressures
of society as we approach the 21st century. Canada is not alone in facing
rising violent crime. All the countries of the Western world are facing
similar problems and crime prevention and the adequate enforcement of criminal
justice must be the primary concern of government at every level.
This petition isolates one concern: violent crime. It focuses on victims'
rights, on the need for accountability within the system, and on the need
to amend the appropriate legislation. It allows petitioners to voice their
concerns on one issue. Over two million people are asking that their government
stress the problem of public safety before we have economic stagnation in
our cities and they become deserted, crime-ridden ghettos; before the rising
incidence of illegal guns being used in the commission of crimes and appearing
in schools results in a loss of confidence in our justice system.
This is our system, funded by us. It is time that we take a more
informed and proactive role in the decisions and rulings of the criminal
justice system which are made on our behalf and, in truth, in our name.
It is our responsibility as Canadian citizens to be aware of these actions
and their effects and to speak up if we become concerned. Silence is taken
by the lawmakers and administrators as acceptance or endorsement of the
status quo. The Criminal Justice System has to recognize and respond to
the precept that the safety of the public must be the overriding principle.
Section 745 or
'The New Math': 15 Years Equals 25
In 1976, capital punishment for convicted murderers was eliminated in Canada.
Mandatory life imprisonment became the sentence. People convicted of first-degree
murder must serve twenty five years, while those convicted of second-degree
murder must only serve between ten and twenty-five years (to be determined
at the time of sentencing) before becoming eligible for parole.
At that same time, Section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada was created
and produced a 'loop hole' to these sentences. Section 745, simply put,
states that if a person has been convicted of first or second-degree murder
and has served 15 years of the sentence, he/she is allowed to apply to the
court and ask for a reduction in the number of years of imprisonment without
eligibility for parole.
On receiving the application, a judge brings together a jury to decide whether
or not to reduce the time to be served. The jury will hear about the character
of the applicant, his/her conduct while serving the sentence, the nature
of the original offense and anything else the judge deems necessary. The
jury can decide to reduce the number of years of imprisonment without eligibility
of parole, set a time in the future for another hearing, or deny the application
outright. Two-thirds of the jury must agree on a decision.
The Crown cannot re-try the original offense at this time. As John Nunziata,
M.P., York South-Weston, stated, 'It must be remembered that during the
reviews, the jury cannot take into account the circumstances of the crime
or the notorious character of the inmate due to that crime. They can only
hear evidence of how he has behaved in an institution.' The jury can only
hear the nature of the offense. Because each Chief Justice is given the
responsibility for making the rules respecting the actual procedure to be
followed in a review, there is a potential for a different process in different
parts of the country.
For example, in one case already heard, the courts excluded evidence of
the practices and policies of the National Parole Board, on the basis that
such evidence was not relevant to the jury's deliberations. In contrast,
the B.C. Supreme Court was prepared to admit evidence of Parole Board practices
in order that the jury decision not be made 'in a vacuum.'
This discrepancy suggests that there is cause for concern as different processes
could bring about different results in each review.
John Nunziata, M.P. will be introducing a Private Member's Bill that will
remove the judicial review provisions of Section 745 of the Criminal Code
for offenders serving life sentences. Nunziata states, 'When a person is
sentenced to life in prison without eligibility for parole for twenty-five
years, that is exactly what it should mean.' His bill will be presented
to 'prevent people like Clifford Olson and Saul Betesh from walking the
streets after serving only 15 years.'
A Convict's Perspective
In November, 1991, a communique issued by Senator Earl A. Hastings published
an article by the President of the Warkworth Lifeservers Group, David Dobson,
outlining how inmates serving life sentences can best use Section 745. In
it, he reported on the group's meeting with community resource persons:
namely, a lawyer, a parole office representative and a Corrections Canada
employee.
The life servers were made aware of common denominators that were found
in successful applications to Section 745 by other inmates in Canada. These
'hints' pointed out that the applicant exhibited remorse, maintained a pro-active,
pro-social disposition (a model inmate), developed good interpersonal communication
and leadership skills, and took an active role in the progress of his case.
Dobson also stated that the applicant's changed behavior had been elaborated
and supported by corrections officers, professionals, family and friends;
the applicant would benefit from increased societal freedoms and supervision
in the community and, that, having exhausted all institutional programming,
continued confinement of the applicant was no longer deemed necessary for
the protection of society.
Lifeservers were advised that during a hearing 'the Crown is not permitted
to remodel the trial' and that the 15 year review is to be 'a clear process
for establishing the applicants parolability based upon the applicants developments
while incarcerated.'
Finally, Mr Dobson informed the group that only two thirds of the jury must
be convinced of parolability based on probabilities not on reasonable doubt.
It is estimated that more than 500 inmates currently serving life sentences
in Canada would be eligible through this legislation to apply for early
parole between now and 2007.
A Victim's Perspective
The repercussions of Section 745 become evident when one is personally
involved. Joanne Kaplinski is one such person. The following passages are
from a letter about section 745 sent to CAVEAT by Ms. Kaplinski:
On January 29, 1978 my brother, Kenneth John Kaplinski, 24, was working as a night clerk at an inn in Barrie, Ontario. After a robbery, he was taken away by car and shot twice in the head at close range, execution style. His decomposed body was found two months later. Two men, Edward Sales and Allan Kinsella were each convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole for 25 years. Kinsella, 51, had an extensive criminal record, and was free on parole at the time.
On that night, I became a lifetime member of a very exclusive club, one in which no one wants membership because the dues are the death of a loved-one by violence.
This past December 1993, my family and I were incensed to find that the murderer of Ken was making an application for a reduction of his life sentence using the little-known Section 745. We can't believe that this is even an option, and it is equally astounding that our tax dollars are being used to fund such a travesty. As tax payers, we pay for the convict's legal expenses, court costs, the Crown Attorney's time, the expert witnesses' time, the police manpower assigned to 'protect' the criminal and other expenses.
When one stops to think that between 500 and 650 murderers have the 'right' to apply for a judicial review such as this within the next ten years, the financial implications for the law abiding average Canadian citizen are staggering.
For Mr. Kinsella, to have received early parole after serving only 15 years of his original sentence flies in the face of the decision handed down by the trial judge, who ordered Kinsella to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for twenty-five years, NOT fifteen years.
My brother's young son, my family and myself have been sentenced to a lifetime of sorrow and loss. Why must we be further victimized by a judicial system that insists on turning a blind eye to the victims of crime; that insists on keeping us silent as it provides no opportunity for us to speak in these proceedings; and that insists on orchestrating itself around the rights of murderers rather than the rights of victims and their families? The very process itself is biased in favour of the offender, as it takes into account only four things:
- The character of the offender. This stresses the offender's reformed character. A bevy of Correctional Services Canada staff, family, friends, psychologists and others are then paraded before the jury to corroborate the 'new and improved' convict.
- The offender's conduct while serving his/her sentence. Good behavior in prison does not necessarily equate to good behavior as a citizen in society.
- The nature of the offence. The jury is forced to deal in abstracts, as they are only permitted to hear a reading of an 'agreed-to statement of facts' and do not hear any testimony from witnesses or surviving victims. We are required to sit mute as our loved one's life is reduced to a mere 'incident' on a criminal's rap sheet.
- Such other matters as the judge deems relevant in the circumstances. The sentiments of a judicial system that has corrupted its mandate to serve and protect are best expressed by the words of Justice Goodearle, when he denied our request for standing in this hearing to deliver a victim impact statement to the jury, 'The pain and anger of the Kaplinski family has no place in this Court.'
Who is this judge serving? I am concerned for impact upon our society as more and more persons like Mr. Kinsella are handed back from the penal system each year, who will spread throughout our population, who will live and move around us. How many of these criminals have truly been 'corrected' or 'reformed'? Fortunately, for society, for my family and myself, justice was served in Kinsella's judicial review. The jury denied his application for a reduction of his parole eligibility and instructed that he may not reapply before the 25 year sentence is completed. In this case, justice was served by the diligence and dedication of a superb Crown Attorney who managed to demonstrate the deficiencies, inaccuracies and flagrant deceptions present in the applicants case. A lesser effort by another Crown Attorney might have resulted in an entirely different outcome. Justice was served by the astuteness and courage of those jurors who took a stand to uphold the sanctity of life.
Upon the close of this review for Kinsella, we were advised by the Crown that the co-convicted murderer Edward Sales is proceeding with his application under Section 745. My family and I will soon be subjected to this outrage and indignation yet again. And we may never cancel our membership in the victim's club - a club where membership has no privileges.
A Sombre Chapter in Canadian Justice
On the eve of presenting our petition to the Canadian Parliament yet
another demonstration has occurred of the failure of the Criminal Justice
System to fulfil what should be its primary function: protecting the safety
and lives of innocent law-abiding Canadian citizens.
Eleven-year-old Sarah Dutil was discovered by her mother in a garbage dumpster
on January 21st, 1994, near the apartment where she had been babysitting
overnight. She had been sexually assaulted, beaten around the face, and
strangled. Her throat had been slashed and she had been stabbed through
one eye. Timothy Dale John Cobb (30) pleaded guilty to first-degree murder
and was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole for twenty-five
years.
The Timothy Cobb trial fiasco represents another hideous miscarriage of
justice. Timothy Cobb is clearly the quintessential dangerous offender.
With an extensive juvenile record Cobb attacked two disabled men with a
knife in 1983, inflicting multiple stab wounds, and was charged with attempted
murder. The sentencing judge described him as a 'Psychopath, who in the
opinion of experts, constitutes a serious danger to society.' A psychiatric
report, prepared for the court concluded that there was 'no solution
except for prolonged imprisonment.' He was sentenced to nine years in
prison. In point of fact all of his subsequent offenses, with the exception
of the murder of Sarah Dutil, took place while he should still have been
in custody.
On June 20th, 1992, Daniel Deschesne, aged twenty-one, was found shot to
death in Montreal. Cobb was charged with the killing. However, just three
weeks into that murder trial and just before the final arguments were to
be delivered by the Crown and defense lawyers, the judge lost jurisdiction
in the case and could not continue sitting in Quebec Superior Court, after
he was appointed to the Quebec Court of Appeal by Brian Mulroney.
His release, after the mistrial in June last year, and the subsequent withdrawal
of charges, constitute a very sombre chapter in Canadian Criminal Justice.
This graphically illustrates the compelling need for drastic action from
the Government of Canada to eliminate the numerous gaping holes in the Criminal
Justice System. One would have thought that common sense would prevail,
that the courts would recognize their patent responsibility regarding the
safety of the general public and act accordingly. Clearly this is not the
case. The courts and officers of the court continue to show disregard for
public safety and indeed frequently seem completely unaware that they should
consider this at all.
It is therefore imperative that legislation be enacted, outlining the courts'
duty of care regarding public safety and that a mechanism of review, external
audit and enforcement should be set up. We are now beyond the realm of education,
discussion, persuasion and sensitivity training. Horrible, preventable deaths
continue to occur, perpetrated by individuals purportedly under the control
of the Criminal Justice System.
It will obviously never be possible to prevent all homicides or acts of
violence: on this we can all agree. However, our failure to take evidently
necessary action where possible, in effect, signals our complicity or acceptance
of these evil deeds. It is not enough to condemn: effective action is essential.
We must not allow the death of Sarah Dutil to be in vain. To do so would
surely affect the repute of the administration of justice.
A Day In Ottawa
A pile of petitions, bearing the signatures of 2.5 million Canadians, dominated
the Commonwealth Room in the House of Commons as five members of CAVEAT
each presented 3,000 new signatures to the Honourable Allan Rock, Minister
of Justice.
Pam Suzuki had organized the petition drives in shopping malls using skills
honed over ten years in Cancer drives. Connie Haig had gone to a mall to
sign a petition and stayed to organise volunteers.
Tiffany Pearson, 20, had sailed with Nina and shared her environmental concerns;
she went on to organise an anti-violence movement in her school, was one
of the organizers of the first 'Night Walk' against violence in Hamilton
and is now helping to organise the first 'Night March' at Queens University,
Kingston.
Pauline Rosenbaum, 18, devoted her summer to volunteering in the CAVEAT
office and, together with Marion Standret, represented CAVEAT at the NOVA
(National Organization of Victims' Assistance) Conference in Rochester,
New York.
Dorothy Leonard, one of our founding members, friend and tennis partner
and her husband Ed, came to comfort us when Nina disappeared. They were
no strangers to tragedy. Dorothy's late husband, David, was a policeman,
and Ed's wife and baby had been killed by a terrorist bomb in Malta. Ed
brought his experience in lobbying against terrorism to CAVEAT. Dorothy
brought complete commitment because 'it is something we little people can
do.'
Forty CAVEAT supporters had travelled to Ottawa in a bus donated by Tim
Hortons and were joined by representatives of the Canadian Police Association,
Victims of Violence and the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime.
Chris Pridham of the Canadian Davis Cup Tennis team and Kevin Marron, author
of 'Fatal Mistakes', were also in the emotionally charged audience as Mr.
Rock accepted the petitions. He said that he shares the concerns of everyone
who signed the petition and assured them that their signatures 'will not
go unnoticed.' However, he continued: 'I don't think today is the day for
specific reform proposals' and repeated the Liberal campaign promises to
address the problem of violent offenders, both youth and adult.
Although CAVEAT will no longer be actively canvassing for signatures on
the de Villiers petition, those who still wish to sign can obtain petitions
from the CAVEAT office and submit them to Beth Phinney, M.P. It is not uncommon
for petitions to still find their way to the House of Commons for several
years after the petition is formally presented.
- CAVEAT Math: If the 2.5 million Canadians who signed our petition were to join hands and form a line, it would stretch the 4,500 kilometres from CAVEAT BC headquarters in Vancouver to Parliament Hill in Ottawa.
- 2.5 million Canadians represents 1 in every 5.4 Canadian voters.
What is CAVEAT
The tragic murder of Nina de Villiers on August 9, 1991 led to an outpouring
of emotion from friends and strangers alike. Overwhelming all the messages
received was the fear that society is not being protected by the justice
System: that victims and their families no longer count.
The de Villiers family, along with some friends, decided to launch a petition
to give Canadians a means of voicing this fear. Two million signatures were
collected on the petition which was presented to the Liberal government
on February 7, 1994.
When it appeared that a more formal voice was needed, CAVEAT came into being.
Priscilla de Villiers, mother of Nina, is the President. CAVEAT was incorporated
in June, 1992 and became a not-for-profit charitable organization in October,
1992. It is composed of a group of citizens who are advocates for a more
accountable justice system; one in which the safety of the public is of
the utmost importance. Our mission is to search for justice, not to seek
revenge.
As CAVEAT grows, we see a much more encompassing need. People are craving
knowledge, answers to their questions and solutions to the devastating effects
that violence has left with them. To answer these needs, CAVEAT has undertaken
numerous public speaking engagements and public forums, and has sponsored
a conference for over 700 youth of our community. We have presented briefs
to government committees presenting our views on various legislation, such
as gun control, parole, sentencing, victims' rights, education, crime prevention,
anti-stalking and the Young Offenders Act.
Priscilla de Villiers and CAVEAT have appeared on many radio and television
programs,have been the subject of articles in national magazines, and have
been quoted locally and nationally in the newspaper.
CAVEAT is supported by a community of Canadians shaken by the senseless
acts of violence and injustice they have seen. Famous international celebrities,
such as tennis players, hockey greats and football stars have joined public
personalities and ordinary citizens, including a senior on a pension who
sent a dollar because that was all she had, to raise funds for CAVEAT to
allow them to make a contribution to ending violence. By working together
for constructive, positive changes, we can all feel more secure.
Along the Road
- On February 7,1994, Jean Chretien declined to sign the de Villiers
petition on the grounds that it would obligate him to sign all petitions
presented to the government That decision is his prerogative, both as a
Prime Minister, and as a Canadian citizen.
- On February 8, 1994, Jean Chretien announced a $150 million enforcement
program to fight the illegal tobacco trade. The RCMP anti-smuggling brigade
is now doubled to 700 agents, and 350 customs inspectors will be added.
- Ottawa claims that cigarette smuggling has become a $5 billion business.
- No dollar value has been estimated for the cost of violent crime, because it is spread over so many departments both provincial and federal: police, courts, correction, loss of earnings, mental health and the inestimable loss to the country of a human being whose potential is limitless. If we ever do establish that cost perhaps we could persuade our government to establish a multi-million dollar enforcement program to end violent crime in Canada.
Two And A Half Years; Two And A Half Million Names
On February 7th, 1994, Priscilla de Villiers presented the last 15,000
signatures of CAVEAT's nation-wide petition against violence. The following
is her speech to the press held in the Commonwealth Room in the House of
Commons.
We are presenting a petition today signed by more than two million people
who are sending a clear message to the government of Canada that violence
is unacceptable in this society.
The petition began during the months that followed the murder of my daughter,
Nina, on August 9, 1991. She was abducted while jogging near our tennis
club and murdered by Jonathon Yeo who was free on bail while awaiting trial
for a vicious sexual assault. As a result of numerous oversights in the
criminal justice system, he had been able to get away with sexual assaults
against women for more than a decade. A bail court had forgotten to order
that he be prohibited from carrying a rifle and live ammunition, although
they had been warned that he was disturbed and suicidal.
As I have learned during the past two and a half years, Nina's case is unfortunately
far from unique. We have continually heard of other dreadful blunders by
the criminal justice system that resulted in horrendous acts of violence,
more innocent victims, broken families and shattered communities. We and
two million other Canadians have heard enough.
We are demanding that the government take responsibility for public safety.
We do not want band-aid measures or empty gestures. Nor do we want more
years of study. We want a prompt, comprehensive and cohesive reform of the
criminal justice system. It is imperative that legislation be enacted to
make public safety a paramount responsibility. We need to make the system
open, accountable and subject to external audit. Furthermore, we have to
know that the findings of such audits will be enforced.
We are no longer prepared to accept a justice system which presumes to act
in our interest but refuses to give us a voice. This is our system, funded
by us and it should be acting in our interests. It is time for us to take
a more informed and proactive role in the decisions and rulings of the criminal
justice system, made on our behalf and in our name. In signing this petition,
two million Canadians have used the only avenue now open to them to demonstrate
their concern.
The presentation today of the most recent 15,000 signatures marks the end
of our campaign to canvass public opinion. The people have spoken and now
we need to get on with the task of making sure that their will is implemented.
CAVEAT will therefore continue to seek reform aiming at the rejection of
violence and enshrining public safety as the birthright of all Canadians.
We will press for improvements in bail and parole legislation, young offender
laws and measures to protect society against dangerous offenders. We will
also promote victims' rights and monitor public spending on the justice
and correctional systems.
Since violent crime cannot be addressed through the justice system alone
we all have to make a long-term commitment to a safer society that rejects
violence and instills non-violent values in our children. Therefore CAVEAT
will continue to promote public awareness in its broadest sense.
Our experience over these past two years has shown us that Canadians are
deeply concerned that our justice system has lost the balance necessary
to be both humane and effective at protecting society. Justice by its very
nature requires a balancing of interests and we believe that public awareness
is necessary to ensure that this is done.
CAVEAT would like to thank all those people across Canada who have assisted
in a myriad of ways in delivering our message today. They have shown that
the passion and commitment of each person can make a difference. Their collective
voice cannot be wrong and must not be ignored.
Parole: Freedom not Licence
The National Parole Board mission is to make 'independent, quality conditional
release decisions and clemency recommendations as part of the criminal justice
system. The Board, by offering the timely reintegration of offenders as
law-abiding citizens, contributes to the protection of society.' 1
The Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA),1992, emphatically states
that with any form of early release, the protection of the public must be
the prime consideration. Recently, there have been decisions made by the
parole board whereby the safety of the public has been categorically put
at risk.
When an offender who has had "the benefit of a full and public hearing
in court, represented by counsel and with a right to appeal, and who has
been duly sentenced with regard to the particular offense and the circumstances
of the offender,"2 is released from the sentence
and reoffends, the public is understandably outraged.
Conditional release manifests one of the most visible, yet least understood
aspects of the criminal justice system. Once a suspect has been apprehended
and charged, the full might of the justice system shifts to favour the rights
of the offender, and the victim very quickly comes face to face with a system
that appears adversarial.
One relative of a victim stated that she thought 'life meant life' when
she was first instructed about the sentence the offender could receive.
She was understandably concerned when she was informed that she was not
entirely correct. While a victim may understand that parole is part of the
correction process, he/she may be unaware of the intricacies of the justice
system.
We may be able to better see this misunderstanding if we remember that a
conviction of first degree murder was originally punishable by death under
Canadian law. In 1976, changes occurred. The law now specifies that while
life does mean life, conditions have been added. These conditions allow
the offender the opportunity to apply for parole after twenty-five years
of incarceration. The offender is also given the right to apply for a judicial
review of his/her sentence. If a judge agrees, the offender may apply for
parole soon after the review (see 'The New Math', on p. 2). Both parole
and the judicial review are perceived by the public to undermine the punishment
and the denunciatory aspects of the sentence.
Not all of the information concerning the crime is necessarily made known
to the review board or parole board. Therefore, the decision to allow a
criminal out on some form of early release is made without a full appraisal
of the situation. For example, in some situations, the final conviction
and sentence is based on a case that was plea bargained. If a serious case
of a brutal murder was successfully plea bargained to manslaughter, the
charge may not appear to be too serious, and yet the details of the case
may include those of a very serious and violent act.
We are lead to understand that many, in fact most, of the parole decisions
result in successful reintegration into society by convicted offenders.
Metro Toronto Police figures indicate that there are about 1200 federal
and provincial parolees on the streets of Toronto, and almost all had been
convicted of serious offenses. Of the 4,000 people the provincial board
releases each year, approximately 85 per cent complete their sentence uneventfully.
While this may be true, and we are pleased that the system is working to
a degree, we are left wondering about the unsuccessful cases: the other
15 per cent, or 600 people who are not so successful, especially those related
to serious violent crime. Even one life lost or destroyed is one too many:
but one lost that could have been prevented is inexcusable.
Stories of misinformation, lack of communication between agencies of the
justice department and non-action on known information show the public that
they are being put at great risk. In some cases, inmates have been granted
parole against the advice of caseworkers who have substantial knowledge
of an inmate. In others, parole board members failed to assess the risk
to the public when granting a release to a prisoner. Still other prisoners
have been granted parole time and time again only to breach the conditions
of the parole, often reoffend, and end up back in prison. No one is made
to answer for these errors. The parole board is not accountable for their
decisions. It is classified as a citizens' board, made up of federal appointees
who have been chosen for patronage rather than their qualifications.
In some provinces, including Ontario, a prisoner may be represented at a
parole board hearing by legal counsel paid for by legal aid. The CCRA, 1992
allows the victim to attend a parole hearing. He/She is entitled to submit
a victim impact statement in writing, but may not testify. The victim impact
statement is shared with the offender, to the horror of many a victim, who
feels vulnerable in the fear that the offender might use the often emotional
statements against him/her, when released.
The presence of a lawyer to argue the offenders case alters the equilibrium
of the hearing by pitting a lawyer against ordinary citizens. The victim
may submit a statement, but may not speak. The victim did not choose
to be a part of this offense yet must travel, often at great expense, to
the hearing. The offender, on the other hand, has free legal aid to represent
him/her. Victims have been made part of the offender's life through no choice
of their own, and want to be treated equally. "They should be treated
to simple justice in the form of parity with the offender. They expect nothing
more and should have to expect nothing less."3
Victims resent legal aid dollars going to an offender when they themselves
are expected to bear the costs incurred by an action that they would prefer
not to have been associated with.
Our parole board is the final arbiter in all cases except statutory release,
and has been granted wide discretionary powers. The unique authority, giving
exclusive discretionary jurisdiction to the board to grant, deny, terminate
or revoke all interim releases except for cases under the jurisdiction of
provincial boards, has no recognizable accountability to any outside body:
a unique position by today's standards.
The parole board has the ability to soften the judges decision regarding
any sentence and may do so without ever knowing the evidence in the case.
This is a huge responsibility left in the hands of political appointees.
It is imperative that criteria for appointment to the board be scrutinized,
specialised training must be available to applicants, and decisions of the
board must be subject to appeal or review by a court of law, if warranted.
"A system that lacks legitimacy in the hearts and minds of those it is to serve and protect will not long endure. Protection of the individual against the tyranny of the majority is a valid objective. However, of at least equal validity is the protection of the majority from the tyranny of the individual." 4
1. Canada. Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Some People Say...National Parole Board. Ottawa: 1991.
2. Some People Say...National Parole Board.
3. Roche, Glenn. 'Submission to the Standing Committee on Administration of Justice on the Subject of Treatment of Victims.' Toronto, Ontario. May, 1993.
4. de Villiers, Priscilla. 'Presentation to the Standing Committee of Justice and the Solicitor General on the Subject of Bill C-36.' Ottawa, Ontario, November 1992.
'Get Them Out': the Quick Fix
By Scott Newark, President of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime
'The new idea is GTO. Get them out, get them out in the community.' - Case
Management Officer, V. Boyle, explaining why the material submitted on an
inmate, Robert Leech, was not objective but instead predicated on the desirability
of the inmate getting out of jail. After getting day parole, Leech, who
was serving a life sentence for sexual assault and kidnapping, promptly
raped and killed a Regina woman in December, 1992.
I've never met V. Boyle but I've seen him or her in operation at almost
every single parole hearing I've attended or read about. V. Boyle is a product
of a system, a system that is not only inefficient, it's deadly.
The correct bureaucratic jargon for what V. Boyle, and every other front
line person at the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole
Board know simply as GTO, is called Corporate Objective #1: 'to enhance
the Service's contribution to the protection of society by safely reintegrating
a large number of offenders as law abiding citizens while reducing the relative
use of incarceration as a major correctional intervention. ' I like V. Boyle's
version: 'Get them out. Let's not kid ourselves, they mean exactly the same
thing.'
All of this is now under discussion because the new Commissioner of CSC,
John Edwards, and the new Chairman of the Parole Board, Michel Degenais,
decided to gamble on the truth. In the old days of Ole Ingstrup and Fred
Gibson, no one would have admitted that Saskatchewan existed.
With the reality genie out of the bottle, a lot of former critics of the
case management and parole process are no doubt shaking their heads and
muttering 'I told you so.' It turns out all the claims were true. They do
just accept the offender's version of the events without bothering to check
such inconvenient sources as police or court transcripts. Psychiatric analysis
is result (release) oriented and nobody pays much attention anyway. The
Board members (both, coincidentally, active Tories) ignored all the rules
and procedures and did not even bother to complete the section about whether
the offender was likely to re-offend. GTO!
These three short letters are a damning indictment of a process and a system
that has lost its grip on reality. While it may be a more attractive recruiting
strategy the other way, the truth is that Correctional Services of Canada
are jailers first and social engineers second. Don't be surprised if one
of the long-term consequences of all this is a movement of the social workers
out of the maximum security jails out onto the streets to deal with what
is still the majority of inmates who should be supervised in the community,
really supervised.
I did a television interview recently with a reporter who covered the Daniel
Gingras case back in 1989. At the time I had tried to make the point that
it was the process and the very system that had to change. It did not. He
reminded me, I had warned that it would happen again. After the Leech report
with its damning admissions, the reporter asked me if I felt vindicated.
All I could think of was Christopher Stephenson, Ezio Faraone, Kitty Schmidt,
Norman Sobus, Jewel Gambler, Joe MacDonald and too many others. What I felt
was sick at heart that it had taken this long.
The answer is not yet another communications modification that can be ignored
or forgotten a year or a month from now. Adjusting Communications in
this system is like putting a new public address system on the Titanic.
The question, I suppose, for people like Herb Gray and indeed his Government
colleagues is whether they wish to make the changes or go down with the
ship that is headed straight for the iceberg.
Sudbury Constable Joseph McDonald
Clinton Suzak amassed thirty convictions ranging from armed robbery and
unlawful confinement to assault causing bodily harm and aggravated assault.
Ten of the convictions, failing to adhere to court-ordered restraints and
breach of recognizance, showed his blatant contempt and disregard for the
authority of the law, its officers and the restrictions placed upon him
by the courts.
At his May hearing with the parole board, Suzak was refused release to Sault
Ste. Marie where police considered him a menace to society.
On June 29, Suzak wrote a personal letter to the Ontario Board of Parole
chairman, Don Wadel, outlining gains he had made in alcohol-abuse programs,
and asked for the chairman's help in obtaining early parole. Wadel, who
had been head of Ottawa's John Howard Society prior to his appointment to
the parole board, referred to Suzak's release as 'nothing unusual' and stated
that his record of 30 criminal charges was 'not serious.'
On August 26, 1993, Clinton Suzak was released from Millbrook Correctional
Institute on early release by the Ontario Parole Board. He had been serving
a sentence of two years less a day for violent crimes. Less than three months
into his parole, in October, 1993, Clinton Suzak and a companion, Ralph
Pennett of Sudbury, were accused of gunning down Sudbury Police Constable
Joseph McDonald during a routine vehicle check. Constable McDonald was beaten,
shot twelve times at close range, and left to die. The two men have been
charged with first degree murder in the case.
The Solicitor General of Ontario, David Christopherson, is conducting a
review of the case which he intends to keep secret until after criminal
charges on the two men are heard.
Issues
1. Should all inmates have the same eligibility for parole no matter how many times they have committed offenses while on past parole? (sections 119 and 120, Conditional Release Act )
2. Suzak was known to have breached his parole conditions on previous occasions. Was the restriction of firearms possession a condition of parole?
3. Is the level of parole supervision adequate?
4. Did the Ontario Parole Board check with Alberta, where Suzak had been wanted for breach of probation, to see if officials there wanted him back?
SOURCES - Alan Cairns. The Toronto Sun. 11.12.93, 26.11.93.
News Release of Robert Runciman, MPP, Leeds-Grenville. 15.10.93.
[Back] [Home] 