 |
| Michael Crowley |
Whenever I started a hearing with a person designated as a dangerous offender, I would tell them that they were facing a difficult task because there were so few that the board had released at any given time.
Why the difference? In the case of lifers, these were (generally) individuals who had been responsible for causing the death of another person or people. What could be worse? On the other hand, the vast majority of dangerous offenders had not taken a life. In fact, there were (in 2021) only 21 individuals who had been designated as a dangerous offender and were also serving a life sentence for murder (Paul Bernardo is such an individual).
The vast majority of dangerous offenders (75 per cent) have been convicted of sex offences, often against children. Usually, a pattern of serious sexual offending had been established over a number of years, and ongoing risk assessments often predicted a significant risk for similar offending in the future.
Generally speaking, the same is not normally the case in assessing the cases of people who have murdered. That is, there have been very few serial killers in Canada, so the repetitive pattern present with sexual or violent offenders is not present.
Of the two individuals, both men, that I granted parole to, one was neither a lifer nor a sex offender. Instead, he had been designated a dangerous offender after committing a number of arsons outside apartment buildings in the city where he resided. He had been angry with the police for (in his view) unfairly charging him with stealing a bicycle, so he decided to get even by embarrassing the police by setting fires, and then calling the police and media and bragging that they could not catch him. Even though the fires were set on the outside of buildings and no one was injured, they easily could have been, and the sentencing judge believed that this man had significant mental health issues that needed to be addressed before he could be safely released.
I doubt that the judge anticipated that this person would serve more than 30 years in prison before he was released, but that was what happened. Making the board’s task more difficult is that there were no treatment programs focusing on arsonists — especially those who did not set fires for sexual gratification or in order to harm anyone. His institutional behaviour had been problem-free for many years, and it was evident that he was no longer angry with anyone or the police in the community. Frankly, my biggest concern was that he was so institutionalized that he would have a very difficult time adjusting to life outside prison. We granted parole and, to my knowledge, he has not reoffended.
The other case was much more worrisome and, in this instance, the individual was serving both a life sentence for murder as well as an indeterminate sentence.
Clearly, I knew what he was capable of — as he had murdered a woman after sexually assaulting her and then taunted police afterward. His last offence was another violent sexual assault of a young woman whom he beat to the point where he believed she had died — but she did not and was a Crown witness.
He was in minimum security the first time I conducted a hearing with him, and he had undertaken a significant number of sex offender treatment programs over a number of years. He was intelligent and very articulate and had not been assessed as being a psychopath.
Despite all the positive information in his file, and his presentation at hearings, I was constantly reminded of the terrible crimes that he had committed and, frankly, may still have been capable of. The most recent psychological risk assessment that the board received indicated that he was currently at a low risk for reoffending. But it also indicated his risk would likely statistically increase after being in the community for three to five years. So, I asked the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) to state, in writing, how it would plan to increase its level of supervision during that critical time. The CSC agreed.
This person has now been in the community for more than 20 years without any problems or concerns.
When the board reviews the cases of anyone who is serving a life sentence, it goes through a thorough risk assessment framework in order to determine whether the risk to the community would be undue or not.
In addition to these usual steps, the board takes a further step with respect to assessing the cases of dangerous offenders, as the court imposed the indeterminate sentence in the belief that the individual’s risk was such that there were no treatment programs or counselling available that would mitigate the risk the individual posed to commit further, significant harm to someone in the community.
As a consequence, if a designated individual is able, at a future date, to take advantage of programming, counselling or other factors, then efforts should be made to safely return them to the community with strict supervision. Therefore, in assessing risk, the board is expected to determine whether the individual’s sentence “has been tailored to meet their specific needs.”
This mandate sometimes causes conflict with CSC as the board does not have the authority to direct CSC as to what institution an individual should be housed in or which programs they should undertake. There were times, in my experience, when I thought an individual could safely transfer to a different institution in order to benefit from a program but was advised against saying so, either at the hearing or in the written decision.
So, to get that sentiment on the record, I would write something like, “In the absence of Mr. Smith’s being able to benefit from the specialized treatment program available at Institution X, the Board can only conclude, as of this date, that the risk for reoffending remains undue.”
I think a number of designated offenders simply give up and decide to waive their right to see the board or to have the board review their cases. And from a public safety perspective, that is an understandable outcome. But I remain of the view that there are cases in which the risk to the community can be managed, safely, and that this is preferable to having someone end their days in a federal penitentiary.
This is the second instalment of a two-part series. Part one: Parole and dangerous offenders, part one.
Michael Crowley has a BA from Syracuse University. He spent more than 40 years in various positions within the criminal justice system in Canada. Before retiring, Crowley had been a member of the Parole Board of Canada for 21 years. Contact him via CrowleyMichael167@gmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.