Advertisement

Why we don't need to worry about dangerous offenders

From the CBC Archives, Nov 3, 1995: Bernardo declared a dangerous offender and will spend the rest of his life in prison

One of the most notorious criminals in Canada, Paul Bernardo is now serving a life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years. He has been designated a dangerous offender, the most extreme classification in Canada’s justice system.

First known as the Scarborough Rapist, in 1995 he was convicted of the brutal kidnapping, rape and murder of two Ontario teens, Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy. He and his then-wife Karla Homolka also raped and killed her younger sister. Homolka served a 12 years for manslaughter after striking a plea bargain dubbed a “deal with the devil” for her testimony against Bernardo.

After 22 years behind bars, Bernardo is applying for day parole

Is there any chance he could be released?

Basically no. With his dangerous offender status, he’s entitled to make an application, but the chances of it being granted are virtually nonexistent, says Michael Scott, partner at Patterson Law in Halifax and head of the firm’s criminal law department. “He is entitled to make application for day or escorted parole three years ahead of his eligibility.”

“To put in perspective, the average first degree murderer is eligible for parole after 25 years but it’s not very common to be granted parole, they’re usually looking at 35 before they have a good shot, says Scott. “And I’ve never heard of someone with dangerous offender status getting parole anywhere in that neighbourhood.”

“My educated guess is that Paul Bernardo will never see the light of day,” said Scott.

What is a Dangerous Offender?

According to Public Safety Canada, an offender who gets a third conviction for a violent or sexual crime will be presumed to be a dangerous offender if each crime warrants a sentence of two years or more.

As of April, 2008, there were 394 surviving dangerous offenders, all were men. 374 of them were incarcerated in federal prisons; one was deported; and 19 were being supervised in the community. There were also 46 who have a similar status who had been sentenced before changes to the system in 1978.

The whole point of the [dangerous offender] designation is to make sure those people never get out, not to assign any sort of punitive measure to them, but to protect the public.

—Michael Scott, partner at Patterson Law

 Do dangerous offenders ever get out?

“Not usually. The bar for dangerous offender status is so high,” says Scott. “I’ve never had a client declared a dangerous offender. A first degree murder designation is not enough, it’s very, very rare. It has to be either a horrific crime, or more likely a series of horrific crimes. the whole point of the designation is to make sure those people never get out, not to assign any sort of punitive measure to them, but to protect the public.”

Can dangerous offenders be rehabilitated?

“Normally with dangerous offenders we’re looking at someone with a long and storied history of being put in the community and reoffending and reoffending, and we’re not talking about stealing cars,” says Scott. Dangerous offenders are put in jail for the protection of the public, he explained.

What happens to “regular” murderers?

With a first degree murder conviction, a person is eligible for parole after 25 years, but on average it’s about 35 years before they get parole. It’s not usual that they would simply be let loose, but instead parole would start with several years of day parole or escorted parole as a way of integrating that person back into the community.

Does a convict’s notoriety affect the decision to release?

“It shouldn’t, said Scott. “The real question is whether they’re rehabilitated, whether they’re safe to be in the community, for their own sake and the rest of us. Just because something has caught public attention, that shouldn’t be a factor in whether a person is paroled or not.”

Will convicts go to a federal or provincial facility?

Convicts are sent to a federal prison for a sentence of two years or more.

Federal institutions offer more programming and support than you would typically find in a provincial institution. “I’ve had a situation recently where a client asked for more time so he could end up in a federal institution rather than provincial,” said Scott.

So Federal is where you want to be?

“The guys that are in and out know that,” said Scott. “The first time it happens to you as a lawyer, it’s an odd thing when a client comes to you and asks that you make a joint recommendation for more time.”

In one example, Springhill Institution, a medium security facility in Nova Scotia “is a good example of a pretty fine federal institution where the focus is on programming, such as job skills, addictions and counseling. There are also transition services, so that when those people are coming up on their release date, they’re not just given $50 and thrown out on the street to fend for themselves. There’s all sorts of transition programming,” said Scott.

Do programs for inmates keep recidivism rates low?

Yes.

“It is money well spent,” said Scott. “What people don’t realize is that when you put human beings in a concrete box for a number of years, you’re treating them like an animal and when they come out they’ll be an animal. You can’t be surprised when you lock somebody up for a number of years with no programming and then when you release them two weeks later they get arrested again - that cannot be a surprise to anybody.”

A 20 year gap in your resume doesn’t look good

According to the CSC, offenders employed within the CORCAN system were “significantly more likely” to attain a job in the community, and vocational certification also increased the odds of being released on a discretionary release and attaining a job.

“That’s why we have these programs in place. They’ll go out in the community and say “we work with Corrections and you need roofers, we’ll pay for half their salary and we’ll monitor them...” we have those sorts of things in place,” said Scott.

What about the kids?

“We were putting more kids in jail than adults, and effectively all we were doing was sending them to crime school... they were worse criminals than when they went in,” said Scott.

“Now critics will say that it [the Youth Criminal Justice Act] is a bit too touchy-feely, but it works, because we found that if you can scare the hell out of a kid who is 15, and help him understand that he does not want to be going down this road for the rest of his life, you can usually sort of snap them out and get them off to a more productive life. Not all, but certainly more than we were doing under the Young Offenders Act.

If you can stop them when they’re young and get the rehabilitated ... you can stop them from becoming frequent flyers in their twenties and thirties.”