C-10 Hearings 2012 02 09 - Victims

Joseph Wamback represents Canadian Crime Victim Foundation  www.ccuf.net

Marie France Mariel is an individual whose brother was murdered.

I met Mr. Wamback before he testified and he told me about the work the Foundation that he founded does.  It provides scholarships to the children of murdered people to help them get an education.  It does research on the harm done to families.  “Carla Homolka got a University Degree.  Leslie McAffy’s sibling got nothing.

Mr. Womback told us it is a lie that mandatory minimums have no deterrant effect.  He says there is hard data from California that there was a 50% reduction in the crime rate in the first five years after the three strikes law was enforced.  The next eight years saw a further reduction of 26%.  The massive cost predictions did not happen.  Studies from Harvard Law School and California show the opposite.  There were cost savings of 54 billion in California.  He then went on to talk about the cost of crime to victims.  He also told us that convicted murderers on parole have killed over 400 Canadians.

Mr. Womback also claims that there is no evidence that incarceration trains criminals, an argument often made.  Youth learn to be criminals in malls, high schools and hockey arenas from older youth who are smarter and don’t get caught.  He strongly supports the idea of minimum sentences and more incarceration to send a strong message that crime doesn’t pay.

Marie France Mariel also supports the law.  Her brother’s murderer has since committed another murder.  Victims are terrified when a person comes to the end of their sentence and is eligible for parole – especially if they don’t know anything about the person.  One criminal she is aware of refuses any sort of treatment but applies every two years for parole.  We need better rehabilitation programs.  The victims need better information about what programs the offender is in and how he is doing.  And some offenders need to really stay in jail for life.  We can’t help them if they cannot reflect on their actions or learn empathy for others.

There was a discussion on the costs to victims whether in real expenses or the kind of life insurance compensation for loss of life or limb.  Lost opportunity, lost wages, medical and psychological costs, etc.

There was discussion about who is a victim.  If someone is murdered is their mother a victim?  Their sibblings?  Their children?  To get benefits you have to be legally designated as a victim and you have to apply.  You need to have someone point the way.  It is a bureaucratic process and easy to get lost in the system.  When people are in shock they don’t know to apply.

There was talk of restitution to victims.  Some propose the offender’s wages in jail be garnisheed as a token recompense.  Unfortunately most do not have assets from which to pay the victim.

Mr. Wamback spoke as an employer.  He agrees that there should be a longer wait for a pardon because, he thinks it is important they tell the employer they have a record.  The ability to say so up front indicates you have accepted what happened , what you did, and you are moving on.  It shows honesty.  He said to me, “When I hire people I want people I can trust.  If someone hides behind a pardon and I find out later, I don’t know if I can trust them.”

The victims rights should be as good as the offenders.  It needs to be recognized that victims have value.  One change in this law that is good is the offender cannot cancel a parole hearing within 14 days of the hearing.  This gives victims the ability to make plans to attend with some confidence the hearing will happen as planned.  Apparently they would go to a hearing and it would be cancelled the day before.

Senator Runcimann asked about the CBA position that this bill would increase the costs of the whole system.  Mr. Wamback asks, “What are the costs of reoffending over and over again and having the same people processed through the system so often?  This is why the system is so jammed.”

When asked about the new provision to detain youth while they are waiting for trial, Marie France said, “The earlier you send them to jail and the longer they stay the first time, the greater the chance that they won’t spend their whole life there.”  She believes a good scare and some decent counseling the first time will be a deterrant.

On the issue of publication of young people’s names, Wamback pointed out that the crime is a badge of honour and everybody at school knows who did it.  Playing it down does nothing to hold them accountable.  Jennifer Stoddard (Office of the Privacy Commissioner) took a different view.  She defends publication bans.  She said that in today’s internet and social media environment that information would never be surpressed.  It would be there to haunt a person forever.  There would be no such thing as a pardon or a removal of record.  You should not do that to a 12-year-old. (She reads the act to have no limit on how young the offender might be whose name might be published.)

When Marie France was asked by Senator Jaffer what she saw as the right thing for victims she said:

·      Not to be a victim.  Prevention of crime is essential.

·      The victim can never be compensated for their losses.

·      More services for victims.  Even if you are an identified victim, you only get 8 counseling sessions.  You need more.  I wouldn’t be able to function without the counseling I have done.

Mr. Wamback said

·      We need more compassion and support for victims. Canada is 26^th in the world in provision of services for victims.  We do not meet the standards set out by the UN for victims of crime.  My agency gets no government support.  A victim whose source of support has been killed has no access to EI services.  Our eyes are closed to the victim.

Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddard also defended publication bans as good protection for witnesses and victims.    Regarding prisoner ankle monitoring bracelets, the Privacy Commissioner said they are problematic.  They have found in the current pilot project with volunteers that they are not reliable.  They produce a lot of detailed information about a person (such as medical information) that is not relevant to their crime and at the same time the quality of that information is suspect.  There is evidence that what the bracelet says is not true – ie it reports they were in one place when we know they were in another.  She does not recommend mandatory ankle bracelets for people on short term leave or parole for that reason.  She recommends it stay voluntary.  She also recommends the processes for determining when the data should be destroyed should be reviewed and made more transparent and consistent.  Conservative Senators were very unhappy with this advice.  They thought the monitoring bracelets added a real element of increased safety.  Prisoners who have committed crimes should have less of a right to privacy. 

Sue O’Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, was pleased with the amendments in C-10 for victims.  They need still more changes.  C-10 addresses

·      The right to present a statement at parole hearing.  The right to attend needs to be added.

·      It removes the right to cancel within 14 days.  This is good.  It could be 30 days.

·      It allows victims to receive information so they can plan for their own safety at the discretion of officers (such as the Parole Board.)  This should be a right.

·      They need the right to see an updated photo of the individual at the time of release.

·      They need advance notification when the offender is being transferred somewhere, especially if it will be close to where the victim lives.

·      They would like the right to attend, at least by video

·      They are interested in restitution orders (paycheck deduction)

·      They would like to see participation in rehabilitation programs a condition of early release.

·      The issue of minimum sentences is not a consensus.  For some victims this is very important.  For others other issues are more important.

·      And they need victim treatment programs.

Balanced against these requests are the needs of the offender.  If personal information is released to the victim, do they then have the right to send it wherever they want?  How could that be stopped? 

I came away from this session feeling quite disturbed.  I realized I didn’t know enough about the situations of victims and the need for right to privacy for offenders and what the right balance between these might be.