Provincial jails clogged with legally innocent Canadians

[steven lloyd]

Provincial jails clogged with legally innocent Canadians

A young suspect was told in bail court he could be thrown in jail for refusing to make his bed at home — one example of how unnecessary bail conditions are helping to clog up the provincial jail system with legally innocent people, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association says.

“We’re not supposed to be imposing unnecessary conditions,” said Abby Deshman, public safety director of the CCLA, who co-authored the just released report Set Up to Fail: Bail and the Revolving Door of Pretrial Detention. “The law sets out a presumption of unconditional release. These people have the right to be presumed innocent. They have not been convicted of any crime and they shouldn’t have their liberty restricted."

The report argues that it's taking far too long for people to have their bail decided. As well, the bail conditions imposed on individuals are much too restrictive, almost impossible to adhere to and criminalize a wide range of otherwise non-criminal behaviour by imposing curfews, restrictions on activities such as drinking or barring contact with certain people.

“We know that failure to comply with your bail conditions is the No. 1 reason for people to be brought into pretrial detention," Deshman said.

"For one youth, the justice of the peace said you have to follow the rules of the household. If your mother tells you to make the bed and you do not make the bed, that is a crime and you will be brought back before this court."

Majority not convicted of any crime

On a typical day, the majority of people in provincial jails have not been convicted of any crime, but are legally innocent and waiting for their trial or a determination of their bail, the report says.

"[There] are appropriate times to place conditions on people or to detain people outright," Deshman said. "Unfortunately, what we’re seeing in our bail courts, two-thirds of people who are appearing are charged with non-violent offences."

Anthony Doob, professor emeritus of criminology at the University of Toronto, said the results of the report aren’t surprising, and reveal society’s reluctance to let people out of jail while they’re awaiting trial.

There are two major grounds for holding people in jail — if there’s serious concern they won’t show up for trial or that they will commit a serious offence if released, he said.

“And if you look at what a substantial number of these people have committed in the first instance, you know we’re not terribly worried they’re going to commit a serious offence, because most people don’t do them and most of the people who are there are not there for very serious offences.”

"If you let 10,000 people out, some number of them greater than zero is going to do something. But we don’t lock up people for what they might do in the future and what they might have done."

Martin Friedland, a University of Toronto law professor whose study in 1965 helped bring in the Bail Reform Act of 1972, said there isn’t the required leadership, federally or provincially, to address this problem, which is costing taxpayers vast amounts of money.

“I think it requires each province, each police force, each Crown attorney branch, each attorney general branch to recognize this problem and try to co-ordinate the system so there’s discretion and restraint exercised."

Could be your family, friends

“It’s important, because it could be one of your relatives, it could be one of your friends, it could be you that gets caught up in this system."

Friedland said that many thought the Bail Reform Act would solve some of the problems of the bail system, but new issues cropped up that still persist today, he said.

For example, in the mid-'70s, reverse onus cases began to be introduced, where the burden rested on the accused to convince a bail court why they should be released, making their release more difficult, he said.

One of the main changes in the bail system as a result of his study was to give police more power to release individuals, Friedland said, but police have been hesitant to use those powers.

"The public wants people that commit crimes to be punished and they don’t care whether they’re punished in advance of a determination of guilt," he said.

Doob said he is sympathetic with the young police officer who has detained someone for being involved in a fight and is considering whether or not to release him.

“What’s going through [his] mind is, ‘If I release him and he commits a serious assault, then I'm going to wear it.’ So what you have to do is to have some kind of training or guidelines."

“It’s just easier for all your decision makers from the original arresting police officer, right to the justice of the peace, to detain people, because then they never have to, in effect, wear the mistake. Nobody is going to complain."

But Mike McCormack, president of the Toronto Police Association, said that each case in which an individual is released or held is evaluated on its own merit.

He said those decisions are based on a reasonable and honest belief that if a person needs to be held or released, they have met those grounds for release or detention.

“There is not an acute sense of paranoia among police officers, 'If I release this guy, I’m going to get dumped on,'" he said.

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/prov ... -canadians

Interesting article but subject to its own ideological bias. It has been my observation, limited as it is to only ten years direct experience working in the area of criminal justice, that there are few people in jail who either don’t deserve to be there, or that society at large is better off for them being there. Don’t take this to mean that I don’t believe we have wrongly convicted people because I know we have. For the most part, though, those people who are held in remand are being held for good reason.

Certainly, this situation is an added stress on taxpayers, and contributes to a more dangerous situation for everyone working or remanded in the institutional systems. However, I personally do not believe the answer lies with radically changing eligibility for release requirements or terms of bail conditions. Any first year psychology student will tell you punishment is only effective if it is immediate and the real problem with our system is the time it takes to process matters from investigation and arrest through to disposition by the Courts (now sometimes measured in years). Reckless cuts to the justice system (including legal aid, Court and Crown staff, forensics services, etc.) have not saved us any money - quite the contrary in fact..

[Atomoa]

The axing of the 2:1 credit - agree or disagree?

From where I stand it's a principal thing. If we cant give people fast trials and keep them locked in jail without conviction then we owe them something, even if they are guilty. If we screw up evidence or process they get to walk, blood on their hands or not.

The onus is on us to be the good guys and do it right.

While I find it interesting (not surprising given your area) that you feel the majority of people locked up waiting for trial should be there - you deal with mostly violent offenders and domestic type stuff I believe. I wonder if that holds true for white collar crime, or other areas of the law/crime. G20 protesters, tax evaders, ect.

Interesting perspective and topic.

[steven lloyd]

The axing of the 2:1 credit - agree or disagree? From where I stand it's a principal thing. If we cant give people fast trials and keep them locked in jail without conviction then we owe them something, even if they are guilty. If we screw up evidence or process they get to walk, blood on their hands or not. The onus is on us to be the good guys and do it right.

That’s a fair point. But again, I know of very few cases where someone remanded and awaiting disposition does not deserve to be there – either due to his history, or risk to others or even himself. On the other side of the coin, the elimination of 2 for 1 assists Crown in making deals and getting offenders to plead out. This is not always satisfactory to those of us who then have to deal with them in the community as we would rather of seen the matter go to trial and have a person found not guilty, or sentenced to a more appropriate and lengthy sentence. The new reality is that with cuts to the criminal justice system (ironic with all this “get tough on crime” talk) we (the system) just cannot keep up with current demands placed on it and we are always looking for short cuts to try and clear backlogged matters. We are saving money all over the place don’t ya know.

[Atomoa]

On the other side of the coin, the elimination of 2 for 1 assists Crown in making deals and getting offenders to plead out

How does this occur and would you classify it as similar to the effect that mandatory minimums have on pleading out?

The US prison population if full of innocent people who pleaded guilty just because they didn't want to risk trial. Curious how this happens in the context you are mentioning.

The new reality is that with cuts to the criminal justice system

As you are well aware, I feel that "cutting taxes/budgets" so people like you who serve the community have less resources to work with is wrong. In turn all of our lives are crappier except those at the top end skimming the cream off the economy and who can buy their way around degrading and failing public and socials services. You are a front line witness to how this happens.

[steven lloyd]

On the other side of the coin, the elimination of 2 for 1 assists Crown in making deals and getting offenders to plead out

How does this occur and would you classify it as similar to the effect that mandatory minimums have on pleading out?

To answer the first part of your question, when the 2 for 1 rule was in effect, offenders were happy to sit in remand and burn up time at twice the rate as they could count on some “time served” to count toward their sentence. With 2 for 1 “time served and then remission, it made sense to the savvy repeat offenders to choose to remain in remand. This is why it was discontinued. Now that it doesn't exist Crown has more leverage. To answer the second part of your question – no.

[Piecemaker]

I have worked with several young people who have breached their bail conditions. They were never sent to custody for not making their bed! I found P.Os to be more than reasonable and endeavoring to aid the young person in turning their life around.
As for the adult system, I've sat through some bail hearings and given their charges, previous criminal history and breaches of previous bail or probation requirements, there really isn't any good reason for the judge to grant them bail. It's just not in the interest of public safety. There is a segment of our society who are in and out of jail their entire lives.
As for those charged with non-violent crimes who may have never been before the court before, (or have some minor conviction in the past) don't they usually get bail unless they are a flight risk?