POLITICS IS GETTING IN THE WAY OF CRIME PREVENTION

Columnist Dan Gardner ("What crime stats don't tell us," July 21) is
half right when he says that "crime trends are not driven by criminal
justice policies."

They are driven by enacting mutually exclusive, politically motivated
policies and practices.

Of all the hot-button issues in politics, arguably none is more
purposely distorted and manipulated than crime and its impact on
public safety. The hard-right line linking punishment to eradication
is at best a very simple answer to an increasingly complicated
problem. The left's marrying of socio-economic circumstances to crime
is equally facile.

While both camps scratch the surface of reality, political
entrenchment based on identified constituencies has prevented either
side of the political spectrum from embracing balance and objectivity.

On any given day in Canada, approximately 125,000 people are assigned
to some form of community supervision. An additional 25,000 to 30,000
individuals are incarcerated, either serving sentences or awaiting trials.

The system isn't broken, but with proper planning and appropriate
allocation of resources, it could do much better. The key is to
separate fact from emotion and continue to embrace Canadian values
based on balance, fairness and cost-effectiveness.

The objective of managing crime and its real and perceived impact on
public safety requires an integrated and targeted approach. To
achieve full citizenry, people must not only be safe, they must feel
safe enough to fully participate in every aspect of community life.
Perception is as important as reality.

When prevention, intervention and enforcement (PIE) are pursued
together -- as opposed to the traditional silo approach -- they are
the keys to successful crime management, offender habilitation and
public safety.

Policy aimed at satisfying an identified constituency usually results
in an overindulgence of one of these approaches at the expense of the
other two. Political leaders who purposely focus on crime as a wedge
issue conveniently distort reality and risk perpetuation of the
status quo. While politicians may gain votes, communities all across
Canada are sacrificed for the sake of political pandering.

Prevention is an often-used but misunderstood concept. It is usually
considered in terms of program development aimed at specific target
groups, commonly related to socio-economic circumstances. Prevention
should be a cradle-to-grave proposition. Those who engage in
antisocial behaviour are considered outside the parameters of the
mainstream. It should come as no surprise that these individuals
consider themselves in a similar fashion.

A review of the literature clearly indicates that the No. 1 risk
factor associated with antisocial behaviour in youth is inconsistent
parenting. Not peers, poverty, or even bad parenting scores as high
when predicting potential for misbehaviour. Fortunately, at-risk
children can be identified early in the school system.

Unfortunately, cost cutting has drastically reduced necessary
interventions for both children and their families. Prevention is
inextricably linked to education and the promotion of pro-social
skills. It must occur early in a child's life and be reinforced
through opportunity.

When debate turns to crime prevention or reduced recidivism, the term
"rehabilitate" is often used inappropriately. In many circumstances,
"habilitate" would be the appropriate term, teaching pro-social and
life skills to a segment of the population that never learned them.

Intervention has traditionally included counselling, supervision and
incarceration. Clearly intervention has been employed as an
after-the-fact methodology when attempting to control antisocial
behaviour. More attention must be paid to interventions prior to the
commission of crimes. In that regard, education, recreation and
employment strategies are net positive interventions.

Legislators must also focus on constructing a penal system that
focuses on cognitive intervention and offender skill development
during incarceration. It makes absolutely no sense to detain for the
sole reason of punishment. The majority of offenders are eventually
released back into our communities and for that reason rehabilitation
or habilitation is an integral piece of the corrections puzzle.

Enforcement is easily the least understood of the three variables.
Those who advocate the merits of this principle also lobby for
tougher sentences, believing that general and specific deterrence has
a positive impact on crime and recidivism. Effective enforcement does
not end with the hiring of more police officers, but rather
recognizes the co-ordinated efforts of all criminal justice
professionals and practitioners working together.

Enforcement must also take into account that each case is unique.
Sometimes referred to as the "yeah, buts" of criminology, enforcement
at the sentencing stage considers mitigating factors associated with
each individual.

Take for example mandatory minimum sentencing for gun crimes. Should
a woman who uses a gun against a spouse after years of abuse be
sentenced by the same standard as a drug dealer who guns down a
shopkeeper? Is drug addiction a crime or an illness? Should the
mentally ill be treated differently than those not afflicted?

The obvious answer to these questions discounts the cookie-cutter
approach to sentencing. In this regard appropriate enforcement
determines the type of intervention required.

Prevention, intervention and enforcement are the basis for successful
public safety policy. By remaining in our silos, bunkered by ideology
and political rhetoric, we will continue to produce familiar outcomes
and election-time hyperbole. Lives will be lost or wasted, a nation
will occasionally lament, the pendulum of policy will swing and yet
little will change. That is a crime that must be prevented. It is as
easy as PIE.