Emotional Reactions Do Not Equal Effective Ones

Unless you've been living under a rock, everyone in Canada knows about 8 year old Victoria Stafford. This is an undoubtedly tragic event, one that was not anticipated by many, and has unfortunately drawn comparisons to the cases of Paul Bernardo and
Karla Homolka. Not surprisingly, the circumstances surrounding this case have been drawing a heavy amount of criticism and emotional response from people throughout the country who are outraged that something like this could happen.

I stumbled across one of these responses today in the form of a group on Facebook, entitled "Tori's Law - Petition for tougher Laws!". The essential purpose of this group is as a starting ground for a petition demanding tougher laws for child offenders (meaning offenders who target children, as opposed to youth offenders who are young people that commit offences - confusing, I know), particularly in the form of mandatory sentences with no chance of parole. This is a natural response to this type of crime - we saw it before with the Holly Jones case and the petitions for Holly's Law featuring similar demands. As the introduction of this group specifically requested that people abstain from sharing their opinions on the matter, I am doing so here.

Signing a petition allows people who are powerless to do anything in the circumstances to at least help in an indirect way, and for many people it provides an opportunity to take action while acting as an outlet for their empathy and outrage. Signing a petition demanding change is their way of recognizing the circumstances, and making it known to the family of the victim that they have their sympathies.

These are by no means invalid reasons to sign a petition asking for tougher laws, and naturally these demands are very emotionally fueled. I do feel it necessary to provide an outside perspective on this for people to consider.

The reason for this demand is to prevent such offenders from being released early, thus eliminating the opportunity for these offenders to recidivate before having completed their mandatory sentences. There are significant problems with demanding tougher laws for child offenders, especially those that are being requested here. Namely, these approaches do not work and can in fact create more harm than good.

Many people become outraged in finding out that an offender, however serious, has been released on parole. I find this anger to be misinformed and misdirected. When offenders are released on parole, they are obliged to adhere to strict conditions regarding their movements, associations, counselling, and almost anything else under the rainbow that the judge may find appropriate to the circumstances. Furthermore, they are required to regularly attend appointments with their assigned parole officers. These individuals are not entirely free to behave however they wish, but instead are heavily supervised while living in the community. The purpose of parole is to reintegrate the individual into society while at the same time keeping close tabs on their behaviours so as to ensure that they live as law abiding, contributing members of society. When a parole condition is violated, such as by committing an offence, then that parole is revoked and they are more often than not sent back into custody.

When an offender is held in custody for the entirety of their sentence, they are released into the community with NO conditions, NO supervision, and NO means of monitoring their movements. It is possible to impose conditions following completion of a sentence, such as under s.810 of the Criminal Code which many may remember occurred following the release of Karla Homolka, but it is difficult to apply this and so it is not often what occurs. Instead, they are released cold turkey from the prison environment, left to their own devices to find their way in society and keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

Parole is community supervision in place of secure custody. For example, if an individual is sentenced to 10 years, and receives parole after 5, they they are supervised on parole for the remaining 5 years. That's 5 years of reintegration while having an additional resource to address underlying causes of their criminal behaviour, and assist offenders in managing triggers that may be found in the everyday happenings of society. When that opportunity is taken away, it is more likely that the individual will recidivate (re-offend) because they lose this support and often are unable to cope outside of the highly disciplined and monitored environment of secure custody.

Asking for mandatory sentences, otherwise known as mandatory minimum sentences, is all well and good, but longer, harsher sentences bring with them their own league of potential problems - primarily, they have not been shown to be any more effective. Longer custody sentences do not act as any greater a deterrent than a shorter rehabilitation-focused sentence. Furthermore, more severe sentences bring with them the possibility of a Brutalizing Effect. This is the primary reason why capital punishment is ineffective. The Brutalizing Effect is what occurs when, due to severe sanctions, offenders commit more serious crimes than they would normally in order to avoid conviction. For example, a sex offender is more likely to murder their victim in order to attempt to avoid a 25 year sentence than they would if there were a 10 year sentence.

It also must be said that the type of offenders that these demands are in relation to, mainly where there is a sexual element to the offence involving a child victim, are for the most part impervious to rehabilitation and have a very high likelihood of recidivism. Paraphilias, or sexual disorders which includes paedophilia, are in essence sexual orientations as much as they are perversions (which is purely a result of social constructs) and are engrained in the individual. Try to make your heterosexual male friend a homosexual - you won't likely succeed. The same is true with these individuals. Throwing them away in prison for a long time certainly removes them from society and incapacitates them from committing further offences, but it does not do so permanently...at least not initially. With these individuals in particular, parole becomes of incredible importance because we are able to maintain some level of control over the individual as opposed to absolutely no control once they have completed their sentences.


So what is the solution then to dealing with these types of offenders? Well from a punishment standpoint you need to look at the two C's: certainty and celerity. A higher likelihood than an offender will be charged for an offence, and the greater speed at which a charge is laid following the commission and detection of the offence are greater deterrents to criminal behaviour than simply having harsh sentences. You could have a life sentence for these types of offences - if it is known that there is a high likelihood that you will escape being charged, and that even if you are it won't occur for some time, then the length of the sentence becomes completely meaningless. Instead of asking for harsher sentences, instead ask for more specialized police resources dedicated to these types of offences and greater funding to support them. Harsher sentences do not address the problems leading to the individual's criminal behaviour.

Another solution could involve demanding better monitoring of student pick-ups at schools. Individuals picking up children could be required to show identification in order to ensure that they are the right individual to be taking the child, or be required to provide advance documentation when there is a change in the pick-up person. To achieve this, which is more of a preventative measure than a sanction, it would be necessary to demand greater funding to either school boards or police so that this service could be provided.


Since there is little that can be done in ways of altering the offending behaviour with these types of criminals (you cannot change those who do not wish to be changed, after all), the most important thing is to educate - your children, your siblings, your family and friends. Parents communicating this topic to their children, and discussing how to deal with strangers at an age appropriate level is a very important part in avoiding these tragedies. It is very easy to want to protect children from knowing of these evils, but ultimately discussing these situations with them and entrenching in them a sense of trust and confidence in you as a parent is the best protection that can be offered short of never letting children outside.

I realise that I may appear cold, detached, and completely lacking in sympathy and/or empathy, but I assure you that I am as disgusted and saddened by the circumstances as I'm sure you are. That being said, it does no one any service to make emotionally charged demands without first examining whether or not what you are asking for will in fact create the change that you desire.

But go ahead and demand away. Everyone will feel better to have done something, and with the current government it is very likely that the demands of this petition will be implemented. The Conservatives are all for "getting tough on crime". They're just looking for a reason to do it.

Implementing them will not solve the problem or even make it disappear, sadly. But what do I know...

In order to evaluate my qualifications in making these statements, please note that I am graduating in June with an Hon.BA in Criminology, am currently employed as an Assistant Youth Probation Officer, and am commencing studies for a JD at Osgoode Hall Law School this year.
Images retrieved from google image search.