Sue O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
Putting the rights of crime victims ahead of an offender's chance at a reasonable parole is a strange way to protect community safety.
A private member's bill backed by the Conservative government would do just that. Bill C-479 goes further than Canada's Ombudsman for Victims of Crime has urged. It's not easy to go further than an ombudsman.
The bill shows how motherhood-sounding policies that give victims and their families more of a place in judicial processes can morph, over time, into substantive changes to the system.
Three years ago, the federal ombudsman for crime victims (an office created by the Conservatives in 2007) identified a problem with parole hearings. Victims and their families were being dragged out every two years to hearings for lifers and dangerous offenders on indefinite sentences. Extending the waiting period to five years after a rejection, rather than two, would ease their pain and suffering, then-ombudsman Steve Sullivan said.
"Families have already been victimized once," his report quoted the sister of a murdered woman as saying. "They shouldn't have to be victimized every two years."
Fair enough. But Bill C-479 takes that principle and applies it to anyone convicted of a violent crime, not merely lifers and dangerous offenders.
Is it good for public safety – for the not-yet victims – if some parole-worthy offenders are blocked from the chance at a supervised release? Mr. Sullivan, now the executive director of Ottawa Victim Services, thinks not. "Parole is an important element of public safety. I'm guessing you'll have some victims who support [the bill], but it might actually put the public at greater risk." People incarcerated for, say, six years, or 10, might have just one chance at parole if the bill becomes law.
It's strange that parole hearings are seen as revictimizing victims. Victims were first allowed to give impact statements in Canadian criminal trials in 1991. Then in 2001 they were allowed to make similar oral presentations at parole board hearings. Victims' participation was a privilege, then a right, and now a burden.
The Conservatives appear sympathetic to what the new Ombudsman, Sue O'Sullivan, calls the "rebalancing" of the justice system. She wants to ensure "at least equal rights and treatment of both the offender and the victim." This is a much more tangible approach to victims' rights than the existing approach of providing victims with information and a chance to participate in hearings.
Bill C-479 would make it a presumption that victims can attend hearings, instead of applying for permission, as they do now. It's a small increment; they usually receive approval now, anyway. And the parole board would be required to consider any victim statements when deciding on early release. That's another increment – the right to speak implies the right to be considered.
The next increment may be contained in a new victims' bill of rights promised by the Conservative government. Ms. O'Sullivan urges an enforcement power for victims' rights – "legislated recourse for victims in the event their rights are not respected." This would ensure that what victims have to offer is "captured and used in decision-making." Would victims be able to take legal action against parole boards that appear to ignore their pleas?
The government is keen on being perceived as the victim's advocate. First came a barrage of tough-on-crime bills, some justifiable, some gone overboard, and some expensive to carry out. The idea seems to be that "if you punish the offender enough, the victim will be happy," Mr. Sullivan says. But clogged courts may mean more plea bargains and dropped charges. Not good for victims.
Victims obviously have a stake in the process. They're the ones who suffered directly, and the system should give them a chance to be heard and informed. And Ms. O'Sullivan has a point when she says that if victims have confidence in the system they will be more likely to report crimes. But victims' interests are not the same as society's. "The conception of criminal law is that a crime is a wrong against the state, and while victims are obviously implicated in that, the fact that it's the Crown against the accused [shows] it's only secondarily about the victim," Wayne MacKay, a Dalhousie University law professor, says.
But the Conservative government is aligning itself, at least in its rhetoric, directly with victims. "Canadians expect that the protection of victims is the paramount consideration in our justice system. Yet this is not always the case. Our government is committed to changing this," Julie Di Mambro, a spokeswoman for Justice Minister Robert Nicholson, says.
Is that what Canadians expect? What does it mean, anyway? Certainly victims need protection from intimidation so they may testify freely. But do Canadians expect victims to be "pre-eminent, requiring first consideration; superior to others in importance, influence, etc." (That is the definition in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary.) Of course not.
There is already a Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime, accepted by the federal and provincial justice ministers. It says that victims' viewpoints are "an important consideration in criminal justice processes and should be considered in accordance with prevailing law, policies and procedures."
That should be enough.