“Tough on crime” reforms: What psychology has to say about the recent and proposed justice policy in Canada.

Abstract

The direction of recent and proposed justice policy in Canada is characterised by more criminal offences and longer periods of incarceration. This policy is based on the rationale that crime in Canada is increasing and the perception that Canadians are not safe. This article reviews whether there is empirical support for the rationale of this policy and the related assumption that this policy will reduce crime and better protect the public. From the existing literature, it seems clear that (1) crime is not on the increase in Canada, (2) it is unlikely that the reforms will lower crime rates, and (3) there is a large financial and human cost of the recent and proposed criminal justice policies. We conclude that "tough on crime" policies are not supported by the scientific literature (e.g., Smith, Goggin & Gendreau, 2002; Stalhlskopf, Males, & Macallier, 2010). Psychology would argue for evidenced-based justice policy; specifically, that early intervention, prevention, and rehabilitation are more beneficial in reducing crime in the long-term and more cost-effective (e.g., Aos, Phipps, Barnoski, & Lieb, 2001; CPPRG, 2010). Policy implications from the field of psychology are discussed.

Evidence-based criminal justice policy for Canada: An exploratory study of public opinion and the perspective of mental health and legal professionals.

“…Tighter restrictions surrounding conditional release means higher rates and longer terms of incarceration, which, in turn, results in an increased risk for future reoffending (Cook & Roesch, 2012). The financial implications of the conditional release amendments of Bill C-10 alone, as suggested by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (2012) Had the Bill C-10 restrictions on conditional release been in effect during that time, it is estimated that approximately 4,500 offenders would no longer have been eligible for conditional release, resulting in a raised cost per offender from $2,575 to $41,006.…”

“…Research has shown that mandatory minimum sentences will result in lengthier stays in jails and prisons, and will have a further negative impact on offenders with mental health issues and Aboriginal people who are already severely overrepresented in the general offender population (for a review, see Barbaree et al, 2012;Cook & Roesch, 2012). According to the 2010-2011 Annual Report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator treatment interventions, access to mental health programs, and proper staffing currently do not meet the needs of offenders in prison today.…”

“Highlights” of a Criminological Career: Anthony Doob and the State of Evaluation Research in Canada

“…Doob and other Canadian academics are not alone in their support for evaluation research and evidence-based criminology (see, e.g., Hudson and Roberts 1993;Hudson 2005;Hastings 2005;Tremblay 2006;Waller 2008;Gendreau, Smith, and Theriault 2009;Linden, Mann, Smart, Vingilis, Solomon, Chamberlain, Asbridge, Rehm, Fischer, Stoduto, Wilk, Roerecke, Trayling, and Wiesenthal 2010;Slinger and Roesch 2010;Wormith 2011;Cook and Roesch 2012). For example, a recent study, sponsored by the National Crime Prevention Centre, asked over 200 Toronto stakeholders to express their views on program evaluation (Wortley and Tanner 2012).…”

Workshop Scribbles, Policy Work and Impact: Anthropological Sensibilities in Praxis at an FASD Workshop

“…This approach is both empirically incorrect and not supported by sound research (Cook and Roesch 2012). It places an emphasis on incarceration over care for those who are often the most marginalised people (including people with cognitive disabilities) filling the prisons in Canada.…”