Crime Is Your Business

DR. CRANFIELD:

In 1916 one of those born in Thorold on January 4th was to acquire from his family, his environment and his experience a solid respect for human worth and dignity. One can speculate that in this particular instance that there were factors relevant to being educated in Welland, as well, and perhaps he was influenced by certain of his teachers.

He went on to qualify at Osgoode Hall Law School in 1939 and returned to Welland to practice briefly in the firm of Macoomb, Macoomb and Street. As World War II progressed into 1941 he joined the armed forces and proceeded overseas with the gallant Saskatoon Light Infantry, fighting in Italy and in Sicily, where he was wounded. He saw service as Air Liaison Officer in Yugoslavia, Greece and Corsica, where I suspect his bilingual skill proved useful. He returned to Canada in 1945 with the valorous 48th Highland Regiment, having by then attained the rank of captain.

Once more he went into the practice of law with his former partners Macoomb & Macoomb. This was for only a two-year period, however, for on January 1st, 1948, he became Magistrate for the city of Welland and performed this duty for eleven years. In the last three years of this, 1956 to 1959, he was also Deputy Judge of the Juvenile and Family Court for the city of Welland.

His interests in the rehabilitation of the individual became so well known that he was invited to Ottawa January 1st, 1959, to accept the appointment of Chairman of the National Parole Board. Within two years he was appointed Queen's Counsel, by Federal authority. He functions so effectively in his role with the National Parole Board that after his first ten years of service there, he was appointed for a further ten years.

One hears the expression describing success as "a small town boy who makes good" or, more grammatically, "a small town boy who does well." Here we have an instance where one can with equally correct syntax say, "a small town boy who does good." He is so respected by law enforcement officers that he has been elected an honorary member of the Canadian Chiefs of Police. One might say there is no wrong side to this Street. Gentlemen, I refer, of course, to Mr. T. George Street, Q.C., Chairman of the National Parole Board who is to address us today on the subject "Crime Is Your Business."

MR. STREET:

Gentlemen, I would like to discuss the the matter of crime and the treatment of criminals and what part parole plays in this great problem, which is or should be of such vital concern to us all.

When you think of the tremendous cost of crime, the loss of property, the misery, the pain and suffering, and the wastage of human lives, the total consequences are staggering.

It is a sad commentary that in our modern 20th century, with all the significant advances in our scientific and sociological skills, that we have failed so miserably in finding a more effective solution to this ever increasing dilemma.

The general public should have a greater consciousness and understanding of the cause and effects of crime, and we should be striving for some solution for it, or at least for some improvement in our present methods. Crime cannot be abolished but it should be reduced to a minimum and we should be able to do better than we have in the past.

The primary purpose of our criminal laws and our whole correctional system is the protection of the public. Because of the increase in crime and criminals, it does not seem that this is being effectively achieved.

We know now from bitter experience that merely locking men up in prison does not do much good but for the majority of them simply makes them worse. Therefore we should try to reform them rather than just punish them. The purpose of punishment should be the correction of the offender and not just vengeance by society.

Today criminal law assumes many of the functions that the family, the church, the school, and even the old familiar neighbourhood (with its relatively stable population) once had. However, it is increasingly difficult for the law to assume these functions in a changing complex urban setting. As a result we find ourselves in a situation where the rules that we wish to enforce are sometimes unenforceable.

To a certain extent we have adjusted our laws to keep up with social change. Law was once set down to punish offenders, no more was thought to be needed. Now the emphasis is shifting to social control and the law allows us to rehabilitate offenders.

In other words we have gone from punishment, to deterrence, to rehabilitation. We realized that continuous punishment in a penal institution has had little effect. Punishment alone does not correct criminal behaviour. It does not even begin to accomplish what it is supposed to do, unless one of its aims is to make the public feel better and safer.

Punishment may be useful in that it shocks a few people so that they will not get into trouble again, but if anything, it usually makes a person bitter if it is carried on too long. Punishment does not usually make an irresponsible person into a responsible citizen.

Even if we modify the punishment, keeping the man out of sight, and out of mind, thus preventing him from committing more crime while in prison, we still have to face the fact that when he completes his sentence there may be little change in his attitude and behaviour. Indeed, sending people to prison can be one of the better ways to make them better criminals.

Today, there are about 7,000 inmates in our federal prisons serving sentences of two years or more. About 80 percent of these have been in some prison before. Some of them have been there quite a few times. In 1969, out of the 4,057 persons admitted to the federal penitentiaries 1,578 had from 4 to 20 previous prison terms.

Does punishment convince them never to return? Do the programmes we offer make them into responsible citizens or even give them the desire to do so? In spite of the efforts of some very dedicated people, I must say that we are not successful in getting to the root of the problem.

Apart from the loss of liberty the prisoner is really not being punished very much anyway. He has a comparatively easy life in prison with no responsibilities and he doesn't even have to work very hard.

His family on the outside are being very adequately punished because they are deprived of his company and support.

And you and I are being punished because we have to pay an exorbitant sum each year to keep a man in prison.

So who is punishing whom?

Punishment, gentlemen, may be what the public wants but it is not only not doing any good but is very expensive. I wonder how long we can afford the expenses of useless and ineffective punishment.

Many of these problems are the result of an unfortunate early life, in an inadequate social and economic environment--the result of poorly planned and designed urban environments.

I do not believe they are all suffering from some sort of sickness and therefore should be exempted from any punishment or discipline. I do not believe that every vulture is a maladjusted nightingale. Some of them, of course, are disturbed and require psychiatric treatment, but most of them are products of poor environment and lack of proper training. As with most things in life, extreme views should be avoided, and I think as much harm can be done by extreme leniency as by extreme severity.

Offenders were not born that way. Their behaviour was learned. And if criminal behaviour can be learned, it is most likely that it can be unlearned.

As unpalatable as the word and all that it implies may be, brainwashing, or some form of it, may be the only solution where the offender is a menace to himself and to society. For I firmly believe that a confirmed criminal who is a menace to society, who shows little immediate prospect for change, should be removed from society until he can be treated and is no longer a menace. After all, you might say that he was brainwashed into criminal behaviour in the first place.

When I talk of the offender who is a menace to society I should also mention the offender who for any one of his acts would not be considered a menace. But he repeats and repeats. He cannot hold a job for long. He commits a minor offence, is sentenced, is a good inmate, is released and repeats the pattern. He simply cannot cope with complexity of our society. We help others who cannot cope. Why do we not help him? Why do we continue to lock him up in prison?

On the other hand, I'm not advocating that we stop imprisoning people. But instead of sentences which do little to change behaviour or attitude, I believe we must continue in the direction we are now moving to treat the offender and to try and rehabilitate him as a responsible member of society. If he can be changed then release him on parole; if not, keep him in prison indefinitely especially if he has established a pattern of criminal behaviour. For as I have already stated, the real purpose of corrections is change in behaviour not mere retribution.

The purpose of proper correctional programmes, is to teach criminals to live properly in society, and to accept their responsibilities. In too many cases, we try to do this by locking them up, away from society, and keeping them in prison where they have no responsibilities.

Perhaps we should give some offenders the sharp, shock of a prison sentence of no particular length, then bring them back to court, in 30 days and put them on probation. This type of sentence has proved successful in the U.S.A.

There are far too many persons sentenced to prison in Canada who could better be dealt with in the community. Canada sends more people to prison than any other country in the world.

The ideal solution to the problem of crime and criminals, would be to place an offender under control for as long as necessary, but no longer than necessary. Wherever possible or feasible, he should be kept in society and required to work, support his dependents and contribute to the economy of the country. If he cannot be properly controlled in society, then he must be placed in custody.

Imprisonment then should be used only as a last resort and only for those who are dangerous who cannot be properly controlled or treated in any other way. One half of the crime is committed by one quarter of the criminals. This one quarter all have three or more previous convictions and they are the ones who should be in prison for a long time until they change their attitudes.

There should be more treatment and control in the community and less use of imprisonment. Most of the offenders are not dangerous or vicious or violent and could be better controlled in the community.

Aside from the human factor that we have been considering, there is another, important, concern for you the taxpayer. That is the financial cost of keeping people in prison. The annual budget of the federal Penitentiary Service is more than $70 million. The budget for Ontario prisons is about $40 million. It costs anywhere from $5,000 to $7,000 a year to keep any inmate in one of our penitentiaries. Besides this, the inmate's family may have to be supported by public funds which can easily amount to another $2,000 to $3,000 a year.

Well, what is the solution to this? One solution is probation and another is parole.

Parole is a means by which a prisoner who gives some indication that he intends to reform can be released from prison to serve the balance of his sentence at large in society.

There are different types of paroles for different purposes. These range from temporary, or day, paroles granted for a limited period to an inmate to attend school, look for or work at a regular job, or for other rehabilitative purposes, to ordinary paroles which means an inmate is out of prison for months or years. In any case, while on parole, a person is under supervision and is subject to conditions and restrictions which are especially designed for his welfare and for the protection of society.

Parole is given to inmates who really want to stay out of trouble and seem likely to do so. It is a matter of helping those who want to help themselves. The possibility of parole provides a tremendous incentive to inmates to reform in order to get parole and get out of prison.

In many quarters, the principle of parole is little understood and reluctantly accepted. Some people believe parole is synonymous with coddling criminals. And when they read of one inmate out of hundreds, who commits a crime while on parole, they are convinced of it. Unfortunately they do not often read of all the paroled inmates who succeed in becoming responsible citizens. I guess if an offender becomes a law abiding citizen no one shouts the news--that's what he is expected to do anyway.

But what a task--what an effort that may have been. It might have been far easier for him to commit another crime and return to the secure society of other offenders in prison, where he was accepted and understood, rather than fight the frustration, the fear, the perhaps genuine inability to cope with the rules of our society. What an effort it often is and what an accomplishment is the success.

I can assure you that the National Parole Board does not coddle offenders. We offer all the help we can and if the parolee is not ready to be a responsible member of the community we can send him back to prison to finish his sentence. We do not expect a perfect record of success. You do not expect the Argos or the Maple Leafs to win every game--though your hopes may be high.

During the first 11 years of operations the Board granted 28,000 paroles of all types. Almost 90 per cent of these paroles were successfully completed without the parolee being returned to prison.

The inmate does not just apply for parole and get it. There is a carefully planned programme behind each release. Even before we grant parole we spend four months looking at a case; studying reports from the institutions, the police and the courts, making investigations in the community, talking to family, relatives, friends and employers. And of course, we talk to the inmate himself.

Are his family relationships good? Does he have a chance for a job?

We want to know if his attitude has changed. We want to know what insights he has of the problems that took him into prison in the first place. We want to know who in the community is willing and able to help him. And we want to know if he is ready and able to help himself. He needs help, and we and other agencies will give him what we can. But a man who is not willing to help himself is not likely to succeed.

Remember, gentlemen, that almost all prisoners are going to come out of prison sooner or later anyway whether you or I like it or not and whether they are ready or not.

If they come out on parole they are under control and cannot as easily return to crime. They also are under control for their good conduct remission time which is 1/a of their sentence so they are under control for a much longer period than they would be if they finished their sentences in prison.

We try to prepare him to re-establish himself in society. He may not recognize how difficult it is, for a man who has been shut off from day to day life for two, five, or ten years cannot just walk out of prison and start afresh. He will probably be socially awkward and insecure. The problems that sent him to prison in the first place may still need attention. Compounding this is the fact that offenders are often difficult to understand and sometimes continue to be difficult. So they evoke negative or even hostile reactions from the public.

One of the more crucial aspects of his rehabilitation is employment.

We have taken steps to improve bonding for parolees, as well as probationers and ex-offenders, in a co-operative effort between government and private agencies and insurance bonding companies. There is not a stated limit for the bond and applications are given individual consideration. After care agencies, in effect "sponsor" the person up for bonding. This has removed much of the difficulty in getting jobs where bonding was involved and perhaps has eliminated some of the reticence many men felt about applying for jobs where bonding was needed.

Nevertheless, some doors still remain closed. Some employers say the inmate does not have adequate training but are really probably not willing to make the extra effort to help rehabilitate the man. Other employers will not hire a man because of the nature of his offence. Still others fear that hiring anyone "with a record" could jeopardize their contracts with other firms. But, let us not discount the successes and the fact that we are making useful citizens out of former criminals.

I mentioned earlier the high cost of keeping men in prison. Parole not only offers a better chance of rehabilitation and saves on the cost of imprisonment, it contributes to the economy of Canada. In May of this year we completed a survey on the earnings of approximately 3,400 men on parole across Canada. During that month almost 2,300 of these men were working and supporting 3,300 dependents. The average wage was $405 and their gross earnings for this year should reach $12 million. In Toronto, 452 parolees were supporting 460 dependents and will earn almost $139,000 this year.

The working parolee earns money, spends money and pays taxes like everyone else. Their earnings are not only contributing to the economy of the country but are definitely contributing to the success of their rehabilitation. A number of studies have shown that a paroled inmate who is continuously employed has a much better chance for a successful rehabilitation and it is easier for him to assume responsibility for himself and his family.

One of these studies, made by the National Parole Board over a five year period, shows that the first two years are the most important for the success of parole and the first is especially important. In other words, the parolee must find a niche in the community as soon as possible, if he is to have any chance to succeed.

A parolee needs a chance to prove himself to gain self-respect, so he can be more receptive to the idea of respecting the rights of others. Self-respect is necessary for good citizenship. But good citizenship just doesn't happen. It is created, even in the most fortunate of us. How much longer and how much harder is it to create a good citizen from a bad one. And it takes good citizens to create good citizens. Crime, gentlemen, is everybody's business.

For our part, I believe that those of us who are intimately involved in rehabilitation should make greater use of probation, parole and detention homes. I believe we should make greater use of volunteers who can work with professionals within the probation and parole systems. And I also believe we could make greater use of sentences of an indeterminate length with enough flexibility that offenders can be released when--like athletes--they have peaked and are ready.

Indeed, I predict that within 10 years, if we do things properly, we could have half the number of people in prison have a greater success at rehabilitation and reduce the need for protection in the community.

What can you do as a taxpayer and a citizen? As a taxpayer you could save yourself a lot of money if you helped change the urban environment by insisting on good urban design and planning. This, I believe, would reduce criminal behaviour as a response against the environment. And when I think of the apathy that prevents this I am reminded of the phrase, "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Perhaps you have only been asked to participate as a taxpayer paying for police, prisons, and parole. Now I'm asking you to do something as a citizen. We need your support, we need your understanding and we need your help. Your assistance can come in the form of voluntary involvement or simply opening a door to a job. Let me stress again, if you do not give the parolee a chance to work, there is almost no way he can rehabilitate himself. I do not guarantee one hundred percent success. But if you do succeed you are likely to have a useful and loyal employee and you will certainly have the satisfaction of helping someone become a good citizen.

We have often been told we are our brother's keeper. I think we have kept him too long. We should be our brother's brother.

In conclusion, let me quote a remark of Albert Schweitzer, who gave up so much of his life to help his fellow man.

"You must give some time to your fellow man. Even if it's a little thing, do something for those who have need of help, something for which you can get no pay but the privilege of doing it. For remember; you don't live in a world all your own. Your brothers are here too."

The gratitude of the Club was expressed by Mr. H. Allen Leal, Q.C.