Crime and punishment.

There's another madman on the loose. As this is written, police are telling women in the Vancouver area not to walk alone or even in small groups. In mid-October 1995, a maniac killed 16-year-old Tanya Smith and badly beat her friend Misty Cockerill. Both young women were from Abbotsford, a quiet, suburban community not far from Vancouver. A week later, two women were assaulted in Vancouver by someone police believe to be Tanya Smith's killer. These attacks came hard on the heels of the abduction and murder of 10-year-old Melissa Deley in nearby Surrey. They followed the kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of Melanie Carpenter. Police believe Ms. Carpenter, 23, was killed by a violent sex offender who had recently been released from jail. (The suspected killers of both Melanie Carpenter and Melissa Deley committed suicide.)

Casting a dark cloud over all these events was the most highly publicized and possibly most horrific court case in Canada's history. In that summer-long trial, Paul Bernardo was convicted of the rape and murder of teenagers Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French.

All these chilling crimes have some common threads; they are vicious attacks on young women by apparent strangers. As such, they get enormous media attention. Because of the random nature of the crimes and their extreme violence they create a special fearfulness in all citizens. The fear is that any one of us could have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and become a victim. That fear prompts many of us to take precautions against crime. In 1993, 44% of women and 33% of men reported that they had changed activities or avoided certain places because of a concern about being a victim of crime.

Canadians believe they are more at risk from violent criminals than in the past. But, are they? University of Toronto criminologist Anthony Doob says yes, and no. "I'm not any more at risk to violence today than I was 18 years ago, but I am at more risk than I was 30 years ago." The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics 730 murders were reported in Canada in 1992. That works out to 2.7 homicides per 100,000 people, or twice the 1.3 rate of 1961. To groups such as the Canadian Police Association, victims' rights organizations, and the Reform Party that's a clear sign that crime is a serious worsening problem But, take a loser look those figures. Since the late 1970s, the murder rate has been stable and is, in fact, lower than it was in 1975 when it peaked at 3.09 per 100,000. By using 1961 as their starting point, says Anthony Doob, law-and-order advocates are being dishonest; "in the same way I would be [dishonest] if I said the murder rate fell by 14% between 1975 and 1992."

The selective use of statistics and the media's behaviour have combined to push the general public into the crackdown-on-crime camp. Edmonton criminologist Jim Hackler says the media too often caters to the public's fascination with sensational or unusual crimes. The recent rash of very widely reported and gruesome crimes has left Canadians with a distorted picture of the extent of the problem.

But, whatever the cause, Canadians are fearful. Not surprisingly then, innocent people are demanding that tougher measures be taken against criminals.

They want punishment; they want it harsh; and they want now. Also, not surprisingly, the politicians are responding to the public pressure. All the major parties have added a get-tough-on-crime plank to their platforms. Even the New Democratic Party, perhaps the least likely to take a hard line, has jumped onto the bandwagon. Here's B.C.'s NDP Premier Mike Harcourt on the subject: "If you are a dangerous sexual offender ... you lose some of your rights because other people's rights are more important and it's more important that innocent citizens ... be protected."

The public mood is blunter. A majority of Canadians want the death penalty brought back. A Gallup poll in June 1995, found an increasingly tough mood towards crime with 76% of Canadians outside Quebec favouring the death penalty for police killers. The public wants equally harsh treatment for the likes of Paul Bernardo or Melvin Stanton.

In January 1988, Mr. Stanton got out of Kingston Penitentiary on a 48-hour pass. A three-time rapist and convicted killer, Mr. Stanton was booked into a halfway house in Toronto. On his first night, he took off. He forced his way into the apartment of Tema Conter, a complete stranger. He raped Ms. Conter and murdered her. The crime had a profound effect on Jane Pepino. A lawyer, Ms. Pepino headed an inquiry into the Stanton case. Afterwards she said that: "Everyone's trying to do their best to see that these guys are in as good a shape as possible when they hit the streets. What I'm saying is: what are these guys hitting the street for?'

"I used to be a liberal, not exactly soft on crime, but willing to give someone a second chance, go that extra mile. No more. Not with these guys.

"There are some who should have the key swallowed on them. Yes, civil libertarians and defence lawyers may scream. But, excuse me, these people have committed very serious offences and there are rising tides of public revulsion towards them."

Psychologist Ruth Bray works with violent sex offenders. She doesn't hold out much hope that treatment will do any good. "...For sadistic sexual offenders there are no answers. You can't prevent these people from acting again."

Dr. Bray believes we need a better balance in the way we deal with these people: "It seems we've gone from one extreme to the other. From criminals with no rights to criminals with unbelievable rights." To which the general public in Canada would likely respond "Yea, verily."

The public anger over the really, really bad guys spills over into other areas. The very sensational cases have an effect on peoples' perception of all criminals. There is a widespread belief that we're nowhere near tough enough on all people who break the law. A poll in 1992, found that 85% of Canadians felt that sentences were not harsh enough. The answer, most Canadians believe, is more cops on the beat and longer jail terms.

But, there's no proof that coming down hard on crooks actually reduces the crime rate. Canada, with no death penalty, has one quarter the murder rate of the United States where a majority of states now have executions. Canada has twice the homicide rate of most European countries; but that's not because we're softer on crime than Europeans. In fact, the rate at which Canada jails people is relatively high compared with Europe's.

The argument most often made by the get-tough lobby is that harsher punishment of criminals will serve as an example to others. It's called deterrence. The idea is that, before sticking up a bank, the robber will ponder on the possibility of getting caught and being punished. The thought of a long stretch in the Big House is supposed to deter the thief from misbehaving. There's a flaw in this reasoning though; most hoodlums don't expect to get caught. The motivation for most crimes is short-term gratification, with no thought given to long-term consequences.

Another reason for punishing criminals is retribution or revenge. That's a very understandable human reaction. Who would want to tell the family of Nicholas Battersby (murdered in a drive-by shooting in Ottawa in March 1994) that his killers should be forgiven? Only a saint would truly forgive in his or her heart; and, most of us are not saints. Knowing the person who did them harm is being punished helps a lot of people come to terms with being a victim. It can help people put the trauma of the crime behind them and get on with the rest of their lives.

Isolation is the one function of the criminal justice system that works every time. If someone is stewing in a prison cell at least we know that offender is not committing any more crimes. The problem the majority of Canadians have with the system is that the isolation does not last long enough.

The way things stand today, someone convicted of first-degree murder gets an automatic prison sentence of 25 years. In some cases, the prisoner can apply for parole after 15 years. But, with a first-degree murder conviction behind them, it's unlikely they'll be released early. However, after 25 years, the convict goes free.

There are two ways the authorities can keep someone locked up beyond 25 years; if he or she is designated a dangerous offender, or is declared criminally insane. But, those designations have to be made at the time of sentencing. We can't wait until someone's about to be released and say: "This guy's an animal filled with rage and poses a danger to the public, so we'd better keep him in." Justice Minister Allan Rock says there's a constitutional reason why this can't be done: "It would be argued that you are resentencing someone for something they've already been sentenced for..." If the inmate was not declared a dangerous offender a quarter of a century earlier, and he's finished his sentence, he walks.

However, those who are designated as dangerous offenders can be kept behind bars indefinitely (currently, about 16 such applications are made a year in Canada). Their cases may be reviewed every two years, but they can only get out if they are found, through psychiatric and other evaluations, to no longer pose a danger. Similarly, the criminally insane can be held for the rest of their lives, if they are found not to be cured.

But, it's only a tiny percentage of inmates who fall into these groups. The vast majority--more than 90% -- are not even violent. Sooner or later, all prisoners complete their sentences and are released. Those that have behaved well while in prison can get out early on parole.

The public hates the parole system. People focus in on rules that put people such as Melvin Stanton on the streets after they've served two thirds of their sentences. But again, the spectacular cases distort the true picture. The majority of people out on parole complete their sentences in the community without committing another crime. Between 1978 and 1988, parole was revoked in only 12% of cases because the parolee re-offended. University of Ottawa criminologist, Dr. Julian Roberts says, "The [parole] system is not the lenient joke people believe it to be."

The argument that's made in favour of the parole system is that it helps lawbreakers make the difficult transition back into society. It's better, say the experts, to ease people back into the real world with the back-up of counselling and support services. Parole officers can monitor progress and help the person coming out of prison stay on the straight and narrow. The alternative is to hold everyone in until the last day of their sentence and then toss what might well be a snarling beast onto the street.

So, parole plays an important part in the last function we give our criminal justice system -- rehabilitation. It's the only part of the system that has any real potential for lowering the crime rates. Yet, it's a job we do very poorly. There are not enough resources to help those in most need. And, there is almost no public support for funding programs that are thought to benefit thugs and slugs.

Almost all crime has its roots in a broad and complex array of social and psychological factors. Most people working in criminal justice agree that creating jobs for young people or finding ways to prevent family breakups will do more to cut crime than longer jail sentences. But, it's no longer fashionable to say such things. This, however, does not stop Justice Minister Allan Rock from saying them. In 1994, he said that, "Longer jail terms ... and more police don't solve the problems of crime, because they don't get at its real causes. And, these are poverty, dysfunctional families, abuse of children, hopelessness."

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES:

1. Criminologist Dr. Julian Roberts says that the public believes crime to be a simple phenomenon and so supports easy answers such as harsher sentences. Discuss this statement.

2. Criminal defence lawyer Bill Trudel asks: "In war we justify killing. On television, we glorify it. Should we be surprised that it spills over into our homes occasionally?" Do you agree with Mr. Trudel's comments? Why? Why not?

3. Have teams of students monitor local news media outlets -- radio, television, print--for a week. The students should determine what percentage of news coverage was given to crime in general and what percentage was given to violent crime. Students should analyse news coverage to determine what focus the reporting took (was it sensationalized, strictly factual?). Have students report on their findings to the class, and have the class draw conclusions from the analysis. As a follow up, invite a news media representative to your class to discuss your findings.

4. Organize a schoolwide debate on the following: "Resolved that Canada should bring back the death penalty for those convicted of first-degree murder." Send a summary of your debate to the federal Justice Minister.

RELATED ARTICLE: FACT FILE

According to the Fraser Institute, random murders, or murders committed by complete strangers, made up only 13% of all murders in 1994, but received 85% of the murder coverage reported on television that year.