 |
| John Hill |
The article highlighted the deep concern expressed by former NHL goalie Don Edwards upon learning the news that George Lovie, the individual who had been released from the minimum-security Beaver Creek Institution to reside at a halfway house in Sudbury the year before, had his day parole extended. The Parole Board of Canada can order day parole and place necessary restrictions for public protection. The offender must prove that the risk is manageable. The conditions of Lovie’s release included residing in the Sudbury community residential facility, having no contact with his victims’ families and reporting any direct or indirect contact with them. He was ordered to abstain from alcohol and report any attempt to initiate relationships with women. The parole board knew that his release plan included volunteering in Sudbury, starting a carpentry business and using inherited funds to buy a home in Sudbury.
Why was this hockey player now living in the United States so adamantly opposed to a Canadian prisoner having his restraints loosened? It comes down to fear. Edwards was genuinely fearful that Lovie would harm his Canadian relatives. The fear was based on Lovie’s actions in 1991. Lovie, then 33, had been romantically involved with Edwards’s sister. The relationship ended when the sister accused Lovie of sexually assaulting her. Lovie denied the accusation. He showed up brandishing a gun and a knife. Even though the sister was able to escape, her mother was shot, and her father was stabbed. Lovie was eventually convicted of two first-degree murder charges. The charge of sexual assault was dropped by the Crown after the maximum penalty of life imprisonment was imposed.
The parole board extended the restrictions of his day parole in 2023, and in March 2024, Lovie was granted full parole. Although he could now live on his own and not in a halfway house, he will continue to be subject to state supervision for the rest of his natural life. Family members were able to address the board at his hearing and begged the board to refuse to grant full parole. They remained fearful that the man who inflicted such harm over 30 years ago may still come after them.
Statistics show that the percentage of paroled inmates who become recidivistic is few, and the number who kill again is exceedingly rare. That is of little comfort to the families. The parole board has done its job ensuring that the risk to the community is manageable and the victims’ families have been allowed to make a victim impact statement. Yet the families and the community are still enraged.
Part of the problem for public discontent is that the correctional system tries to solve a complex issue with simple solutions, such as allowing for reading victim impact statements. Few people understand the lengthy procedures used to see the inmate rehabilitated and cascade from maximum to minimum security. Few know the degree to which the parole board takes pains to ensure that full parole is granted to only the most deserving. Even though victim participation is allowed at a hearing, some see this as a meaningless exercise or, worse, a revictimization of the families.
It is time to take victims more into the confidence of the correctional authorities and allow victims to actively meet with and engage with the prisoner throughout the offender’s incarceration. Such a procedure would help educate those who have been victimized into a better understanding that rehabilitation assists the whole community and is far more effective than using prisons as places of punishment. The Correctional Service of Canada offers a voluntary program called the Restorative Opportunities Program that focuses on addressing the harm caused by crime and meeting the needs of those involved. The program provides victims the opportunity to communicate with the offender who harmed them. It will enable both offender and victim to understand that people change over time and that rehabilitation is possible. It can replace fear with hope.
The program is not well known. There remains an influential desire by some victims’ rights advocates to press for more severe and lengthy prison terms. This lobby aims to create the fear that offenders are animals ready to be released from their cages to harm again. It is this group for which we should be most fearful.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.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.