NEEDED: A BETTER WAY OF DEALING WITH PROPERTY CRIME

In 1971, Ottawa changed the approach taken towards convicted criminals.

The minister responsible stated "we have decided from now on to
stress the rehabilitation of individuals rather than the protection
of society." This approach has prevailed ever since.

The rationale for this change was that at least 80 per cent of
inmates can be rehabilitated. However, this simplistic approach does
not deal with the remainder of the criminal population where efforts
at rehabilitation generally are not successful. That small group
appears to be responsible for a majority of the crime inflicted upon
the citizens and businesses of Canada.

Crime remains a serious problem in Canada, which saw more than eight
million criminal offences in 2004, directly affecting one person in
four. And there were more than 2.7 million violent crimes, which
inflicted over 650,000 physical injuries.

The latest year for which reliable information is available is 2004.
More recent information on so-called "crime rates" is based on
reports to police -- and only about one-third of crimes are reported.
Only a small proportion of sexual or spousal assaults and fewer than
half of common assaults are reported; most property crime is not.

The cost of losses due to crime is huge. For example, the Vancouver
Board of Trade has estimated that in the city of Vancouver alone in
2005, property crime cost $125 million. Of this, residents carried
most of the burden at an estimated cost of $103 million. In
comparison, the total expenditures of the Vancouver Police Department
for 2005 was $149 million.

The VPD has identified a core group of repeat offenders responsible
for a majority of the crime in the city. An effective means of
convincing them to leave their life of crime would significantly
diminish the problem.

Courts have tended to interpret the emphasis on rehabilitation as
extending to lenient sentences for chronic offenders, despite the
fact that they are likely to continue committing crimes and
victimizing more of the public. In the case of property crimes,
sentences tend to be the same for those with many convictions as for
those who have few. Repeat offenders who simply continue to flout the
law should be incarcerated for increasing periods of time, both as a
deterrent and as means of preventing them from continuing their life of crime.

However, all criminals who are willing to reform should be provided
with the opportunity. In particular, that should extend to those who
are drug addicts.

Much crime is related to drug addiction. The treatment available for
drug addicts resident in Greater Vancouver is generally inadequate.
There is a waiting list for treatment, so that addicts inclined to
get off drugs continue in their drug-ridden environment and may not
follow through with their inclination. The standard 28-day treatment
is inadequate for most addicts. In addition, on completion of
treatment they generally have no alternative but to go back into
their previous environment, with a high probability of relapsing into
drug use. And to support that use, many resort to property crime.

In addition to the clinical arguments for increased treatment
capacity, there is a strong economic argument. It costs approximately
$150 a day or more to keep a person in prison in B.C. It costs
approximately $40 a day for drug treatment in one of the local
not-for-profit facilities.

It costs society far more than either of these amounts to have
chronic property crime offenders free to prey on the vehicles and
premises of residents and visitors. A survey conducted by the VPD
several years ago indicated that on average drug addicts in the
Downtown Eastside required about $50 a day to pay for drugs. Those
who use property crime to obtain these funds likely receive only 10
per cent of the retail value of the stolen items they sell. The cost
to the victims may thus be $500 or more.

To the extent that the addict depends on breaking into vehicles, the
loss to the owner may be much higher. In many cases the addict might
recover only a small amount of change or minor items of little value.
However, the vehicle owner will require the repair of the broken
window at a cost of perhaps $500 to $1000.

Thus, for every day that an addict is in a treatment facility rather
than in prison or loose on the streets, either the government or the
public stands to gain substantially.

A hopeful development will be the Community Court scheduled to open
in Vancouver in early 2008. Patterned after community courts
operating successfully in New York City, it would deal promptly with
offenders prepared to plead guilty. Treatment, rehabilitation and
prompt access to services dealing with addictions, mental or other
illnesses or homelessness would be facilitated by the court.

Instead of the "revolving door" system where street crime offenders
clog up the justice system, the Community Court will help to reduce
the waste of time and criminal court resources.

Through a combination of stiffer sentences and better rehabilitation
assistance, the current unacceptable crime situation needs to be dealt with.

Dave Park is economist emeritus at the Vancouver Board of Trade.