When voters turn their attention to the issue of crime, there is one key question worth asking — do we as a country want to spend more to keep criminals in jail for longer or spend more to decrease the number of individuals going to prison or reoffending? If there are billions to spend on crime reduction, common sense dictates channelling that money toward intervention and rehabilitation instead of criminal warehouses.
On the surface, the different perspectives between the Conservatives and all the other parties are vast. The Conservatives want to spend more money on prisons in order to find room to jail all the individuals caught in the nets of their equally expensive ‘tough-on-crime’ bills while opposition candidates of every other party favour investing in young people and rehabilitating criminals to make sure they don’t reoffend. Worthy of note, too, is the fact the Conservatives’ failure to release the true costs of their crime agenda and the subsequent historic contempt finding are partly what led to this election in the first place.
Locking criminals up for longer periods of time has some effect — it keeps them off the streets for longer. But without the necessary vocational and behavioural programming, all criminals will learn from prison is how to become better criminals. The Office of the Correctional Investigator notes Corrections Canada spends more on prison maintenance than education or job programming. We have also learned first-hand in the Gary Edwin Mattson dangerous offender hearing that it can take as long as 5.3 years to get the training convicts need to be rehabilitated. Yes, some criminals don’t avail themselves of programming or only pay it the necessary lip service needed to qualify for parole. But if we don’t offer convicted offenders any other option besides a life of crime, what reason do they have to change?
How far would the $2 billion the Conservatives have slotted for prison expansion and construction go towards programming, not just in prisons but also in communities? A very long way. And, the subsequent savings from not housing repeat or first-time offenders would cover the financial cost and reap millions in social benefits from an increased work force, happier and healthier family environments and safer communities. Are there criminals who can’t be rehabilitated? Absolutely. But among that group are those who never received a minute of counselling, education or vocational training while they were behind bars. Their criminal histories read like the stereotypical ‘revolving door’ because no one bothered to intervene.
There are criminals who have no place in our society and should spend the rest of their natural lives locked away; the Paul Bernardos, Clifford Olsens and Allan Legeres of the world are beyond rehabilitation. But our society is otherwise built on the foundation that most deserve a second chance if they are willing. What many understand but few seem ready to put into action is that keeping criminals out of jail is a multi-faceted problem. It involves physical health and mental health, family and community support, education, positive role models and building the necessary tools to ensure success. It is complex and will be expensive, but the results will create much safer communities than simply locking everyone away for as long as possible.
So let’s put that money toward something besides more cells and guards. Let’s even take some of the billions earmarked for fighter jets and invest in the social fabric of our country. Let’s have justice instead of vengeance, rehabilitation instead of reoffending and hope instead of resignation. There are few other issues that demand the full commitment of our attention and resources.
