Chapter 3

Crime Control
Philosophy and
Criminal Justice Policy
Copyright © 2004 Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada
Crime Control in
Canada
 Is the system too soft on crime?
 Should plea-bargaining be
banned?
 Should we have mandatory
sentencing?
 Do we need more police?
 Does judicial discretion need to
be controlled? 2
The Justice Model

3
History
 American Friends Service
Committee (1971). Struggle
for Justice.
– Response to prison riot in New
York.
– Sentence should fit the offence,
not the offender.
 Systems based on justice model
introduced in US during 1970s
and 1980s.
4
Ideals
 Justice, fairness, protection of
human rights and dignity.
 Punishment must fit the crime.
 Everyone treated equally.

5
Criminal Sanction
 Punishment varies with the severity of
the crime, not the situation or
offender.
 Prior record is considered.
 Gravity of offence is subject to review.
 Use alternative measures for minor
offences.
 Presumption of innocence.
 Protection of rights through due
6
process.
How does it work?
 Main concerns
– Eliminate discretion.
– Protect rights through due process.
 Police
– Focus on investigating serious crimes.
– Divert minor offenders.
 Prosecutor
– Can’t drop charges.
– No plea-bargaining.
 Judges
– Must follow strict guidelines.
– Eliminate parole, decrease length of sentences.

7
The Deterrence Model

8
History

9
Ideals
 Law is part of a “social contract”
between the individual and the state.
 Punishment must fit the crime.
– No capital punishment or torture.
 People are rational and have free will.
– Can be deterred by fear of punishment.
 Use certainty, swiftness, and
severity of punishment to reduce
crime.
10
Criminal Sanction
 Assumes a direct relationship
among certainty, severity, and
swiftness of punishment.
 Offender must perceive likelihood
of punishment to be deterred.

11
How does it work?
 Goal is prevention of future crime.
 System must be efficient (swiftness).
– More police, prosecutors, judges,
etc. means higher costs.
 More community prevention programs.
 Less plea-bargaining, bail, no judicial
discretion, longer sentences, no
parole.
12
Selective
Incapacitation

13
History
 James Q. Wilson (1975). Thinking
about crime.
 Peter Greenwood (1982). Study of
prison inmates.
– Sponsored by Rand Corp., a
conservative US thinktank.
– A few offenders are responsible for
large part of total crime.

14
Ideals
 Identify chronic offenders and
imprison them indefinitely,
thereby reducing overall crime.
 Reduce costs by jailing first-timers
less.

15
Criminal Sanction
 Punishment is based on presumed
future behaviour.
– As determined by previous convictions.
 Emphasis on the offender rather than
offence.
 Examples:
– “Three strikes” legislation.
– Dangerous offender laws.
– Sexual predator laws.

16
How does it work?
 May be used with other models of
justice.
 More money and resources for
certain offenders and offences.
 More background checks
(computers), less judicial
discretion, no parole, few prison
programs.
17
Rehabilitation

18
History

 John Howard
– British prison reformer (1726-1790).

 Elizabeth Fry
– British prison reform advocate for
female prisoners (1750-1845).

19
Ideals
 Reduce recidivism.
 Identify the social and
psychological causes of crime.
 Develop remedial programs to
correct the behaviour.
 Effectiveness determined by
recidivism rates.
20
Criminal Sanction
 Tailored to the offender.
 Flexible and discretionary.
 Based on the needs of the
offender.

21
How does it work?
 More discretion to main agencies.
 No restrictions on plea-
bargaining.
 Emphasis on pre-sentence
reports.
 Probation and parole enhanced.
 More money for prison programs,
therapy. 22

 Prison would be treatment-

Aboriginal Justice and
Restorative Justice
Systems
 Challenge traditional approaches.
 Justice systems should
– Be community-based.
– Be non-hierarchical.
– Involve victims, offenders, and lay
members of the community.
 Focus
– Should be on healing, not
punishment.
23
Aboriginal Justice
Systems

24
Ideals
 Crime is an injury, disrupts
harmony.
 Justice involves a healing
process.
 Healing is based on
restorative justice model.

25
Political History
 Law reform commission (1991)
– Endorsed concept of aboriginal system.
 Federal government (1996)
– Rejected separate system.
 Manitoba
– Is exploring implementation of parallel
justice system.
 Saskatchewan
– Implemented justice of the peace
program, parallel to criminal justice
system.
26
Models of Aboriginal
Justice
 Essential components
– Observe aboriginal cultural
traditions and cultural values.
– Adapt to modern society.
– Include the interests of the
collectivity, reintegration of
offender, mediation and conciliation
within the community.
– Recognize elders and community
leaders.
27
– Avoid blame, focus on healing.
Cultural Imperatives
 Rules to suppress conflict and
maintain harmony.
 Ethic of noninterference, no coercion.
 Non-competitiveness, avoid intra-group
rivalry.
 Emotional restraint.
 Sharing of resources.

28
Community
Participation
 Various forms  Common
– Sentencing features
circles. – Spirituality.
– Elders’ or – Grassroots
community consultations.
sentencing panel. – Community
– Community consensus.
mediation – Sharing.
committee.

29
Forms of
Implementation
 Hollow Water  Sandy Bay and
Community Attawapiskat
Holistic Healing – Elders work with
Program judge at sentencing.
– Team of native – Focus on community
professionals. service.
– Works with sex – Charges are stayed
offender through a while elders hear
healing process. case and pass
– Reports to sentence.
sentencing judge. – Re-activated if
– Opposes offender recidivates.
imprisonment. 30
Peacemaker Court
 First Aboriginal court system.
 Opened October 2000 near Calgary.
 First Nations judge.
 Peacemaker program.
 Control over court administration.
 Combines Tsuu Tina traditions with
Canadian provincial court traditions.
 Modeled after Navajo peacemakers
approach.
31
Restorative Justice

 Focuses on incorporating individual

conscience and interpersonal relations
to deter crime.

32
History
 John Braithwaite (1989) developed
concept of “reintegrative
shaming”.
 Based on examination of Japanese
traditions.
– Family honour and strength of group
norms.

33
Sanctions
 Focus is on interests of the victim, the
public and the community.
 Use “reintegrative shaming” to
moralize the offender.
– Public exposure.
– Debasement.
– Apology penalties.
 Re-connect offender with his/her
significant others.
 Alternative to incarceration,
performed in the community.
34
How does it work?
 Limited to property and non-serious
violent crime.
 Conference of professionals
– Victims, offender and family, community
members hear the details.
– Sentence is by consensus of the group.
 Goals
– Accountability, prevention, and healing.
 Resolution document
– Signed by all participants.

35