REDUCING CRIME BY SETTING CRIMINALS FREE

Statistics show the federal statutory release program is working. But
that hasn't stopped right-wing politicians from trying to do away with
it.

Graham Stewart

Freelance

I can't recall any prisoner who wanted to be a prisoner. I do recall
some who knew nothing else, and others who found life in the community
too difficult to bear, and so prison became a refuge. But they all
knew their lives were being wasted. It is about the same as those of
us who persist in jobs we hate or in relationships that are
destructive because we can't see or believe there are any other options.

A prisoner often leaves prison thinking that success is just a matter
of luck, not choice. He hopes for "a break," but too often, the
poverty and isolation quickly bring him back to familiar haunts and
old habits. That is how they get by. In the minds of many, they don't
go to prison for committing crimes; they commit crimes to get by
between prison stints. Their situation is often made worse by a
cocktail of other problems, such as mental illness, addictions,
illiteracy, poor education, lack of skills, a lack of family or
community support and every other imaginable disadvantage. Some call
them "unmotivated."

For many decades, we have had parole to provide early gradual release
for those who looked like the best bets to succeed. The remaining
higher-risk prisoners were left in prison until their sentence ended.
They left prison with nothing more than some prison-made clothes, a
few dollars and a bus ticket "home."

This situation led to the logical question: How can we pretend to
address reoffending if we avoid the most worrisome cases?

In 1969, Canada introduced a program, now called statutory release,
that required all federal prisoners -- even the most difficult cases
- -- to be released under a system of structure and support. They did
this without shortening the time spent in prison, by taking away their
opportunity to earn remission for good behaviour.

Remission usually accounted for one-third of the total sentence, so
statutory release began when the person would have otherwise been
released free and clear. Thus, statutory release would pose no
increased risk to the public. Politicians liked the idea that they
could appear to be both progressive and tough at the same time.

'SEATBELT LAW' OF CORRECTIONS

Statutory release is like the mandatory requirement to wear seatbelts.
We don't know who will be in an accident, but we do know that if
everyone wears a seatbelt, lives will be saved and injuries will be
avoided. Similarly, we don't know who might reoffend, but we do know
that we will have fewer crimes, and, most importantly, fewer victims.

A public that can understand the risk-management principles of
mandatory seatbelt laws can also understand those principles when
applied to statutory release -- when they're given the facts.

Statutory release has been successful. In 2006-07, 58.1 per cent of
those on statutory release completed their supervision period
successfully, while 30.7 per cent failed to live by the rules and were
returned to prison for "technical" violations. Nine per cent returned
because of a property crime. That leaves 2.2 per cent who returned
because they committed a violent crime. The overall rates of
reoffending have been dropping steadily for decades. It shows that,
because no one wants to be a prisoner, even small amounts of structure
and support can make an enormous difference.

Harsh criticism generated by the rare but inevitable spectacular
failure has led every national government since 1969 to retreat from
supporting statutory release. But while they renamed the program,
restricted its use and made the controls more onerous, they all
stopped short of outright abolition. They simply could not deny that
statutory release reduced criminal activity.

Last spring, Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day created a
Correctional Service of Canada review panel. He appointed as chair Rob
Sampson, a minister of correctional services for two years in the Mike
Harris government in Ontario. The panel was asked to provide, within
the absurdly short time frame of 50 days, opinions on an enormous
range of very complex issues relating to the Correctional Service of
Canada -- including statutory release.

In its brief analysis, the panel's report focused heavily on its
observation that "statutory release cases accounted for 79 per cent of
violent reoffending in the community." It concluded that "unmotivated"
prisoners should not be let out of prison on statutory release.

The Sampson panel presents calculations that seem intended to convince
us that what is politically safe is also in the public's best
interests. By using the phrase "79 per cent of violent reoffending in
the community," the report magnifies the public's already exaggerated
perception of violent re-offending by those under supervision. In
fact, the 111 violent crimes (of all types and severity) committed in
the community by those on statutory release in 2006-07 are a tiny
fraction of the 310,307 violent crimes reported by Statistics Canada
for that year, and certainly not a high number for the 5,418 difficult
statutory releases in the community.

Those serving life or indefinite sentences are not eligible for
statutory release. On average, the period spent on statutory release
is about eight months. With or without statutory release, these
prisoners will be with us shortly.

The fact that the statutory release cases do worse than the parole
group is hardly a revelation. That was expected from the beginning.

The test of statutory release is not whether prisoners released under
it commit more crimes than those on parole but whether they commit
fewer crimes than would be the case if they had been released directly
to the street.

PANEL WOULD TURN BACK CLOCK

For the Sampson panel, statutory release is an unacceptable risk. The
way forward is to go back to 1969 -- almost. The panel doesn't mention
that, having already abolished remission, to then abolish statutory
release would mean that the time spent in prison for identical
sentences would be 50 per cent longer. The immediate impact on prison
population levels would be dramatic, bringing with it a plethora of
prison management, safety and cost problems.

Statutory release is the seatbelt law of our federal correctional
system. It was not put in place for those who "earned" it. It was put
in place for the public, who deserve, need and depend on an effective
correctional system.

The shelves of Day's office are lined with studies and reports on
statutory release going back decades, all of which provide careful,
informed and balanced assessments of the real costs and lost
opportunities that would occur if statutory release were dropped.

To overlook this immense body of work for the superficial assessment
and naive recommendations of the Sampson panel would bring about an
entirely avoidable tragedy.

Graham Stewart retired last year as executive director of the John
Howard Society of Canada after working for the society for more than
30 years. The John Howard Society, a charitable organization that
helps people who come into conflict with the law