This week on On The Line, Matt Gurney is joined by Clayton Campbell, president of the Toronto Police Association, for a frank conversation about the state of law and order in Canada’s biggest city — and beyond.
A few weeks ago I referred to the study showing that 63% of violent crime is committed by 1 % of the population and I tracked it down. Here is the link:
About one quarter of all those who were ever convicted of a violent crime (i.e., the offender group), corresponding to the most persistently violent 1 % of the study population, were responsible for a total of 63 % of all violent crime convictions in the country, while almost three quarters of all violent offenders, corresponding to 2.9 % of the population, were convicted only once or twice during the study period. This is in line with previous research that shows a small group of criminally active young adult men to be responsible for a large part of all violent crimes [3, 4, 33] and the high impact of a very small group of especially violent individuals indicated by the high reconviction rates among former prison detainees [8]. The numbers (and relative proportions) of violent convictions that theoretically could be prevented if individuals were stopped from committing further crimes at specific stages of relapsing into violence may be used to plan preventive strategies against violent crime (Table 2). If all violent crime careers could come to a stop after a third conviction (which would require interventions directed at 1 % of the total population), more than 50 % of all convictions for violent crime in the total population would be prevented.
That last sentence is a great argument for "three (violent) strikes and you're out". I am a big "incentives matter" guy but incentives obviously do NOT matter to the 1% who are "bad seeds" and will never change. The only answer is to get those dudes off the street FOREVER.
You don't need to get them off the streets forever. The number of offenders who don't at least greatly slow down their violent offending by their thirties is an even smaller subset of that group. Even that 1% tend to be a LOT less criminal and violent at 30, and even less so at 35. The 0.1% are the ones who there's not much to be done with. Even they might manage OK with a sufficiently structured environment - I doubt you actually need 24 hour locking up for a lot of them.
This type of thinking is exactly our problem! I do not want our resources wasted parsing thru these bozos...three strikes you're out. We are going wait everyday for some criminal to "age out"??!! There are thousands of people turning 30 or 35 every day. Let's be proactive and get them off the street way before then.
The simple solution is escalation of consequences based on behaviour, long overdue. Patterns of behaviour are reliable.
I don't care (and no-one should) what the data says about the man's likelihood of reoffending based on large samples; this is a silly trap. What matters is the behaviour of this individual, which should decide their consequences. At some point the consequences will be so dire they are effectively removed, and we should all be grateful.
Enjoyed the interview, very articulate guest from the TPA. Matt, your ER story sounds the same as our city ER. Regarding the firearms confiscation - if there was a Nobel Prize equivalent for government waste and political pandering, the Liberals would have won by a long shot (no pun intended..).
I think longer sentences are necessary for incapacitation of prolific offenders, but I don’t think they’ll do much for deterrence. The people who commit crimes aren’t thinking about whether they shouldn’t commit a crime because they’d be in prison for 10 years instead of 5. What would actually deter them is making it more certain that they’re going to be caught and punished.
Back in the early 2000s, car theft was a huge problem in BC’s Lower Mainland. The core of the problem was also a small number of prolific criminals. What put an end to to the epidemic of car theft was a “Bait Car” program: specially modified cars equipped with video cameras, trackers, and the ability to disable them remotely and trap the thief inside the car until the police arrived to arrest them. Something like this is needed on a wider scale until we reset expectations that criminal behavior will be punished.
What seems to have happened over the past decade is that criminals realized that they weren’t likely to be caught or face consequences. Policing levels had been cut, but even before that we were likely getting by with a lighter level of policing because there was an expectation that you couldn’t commit crime with impunity. Once that expectation changed, we’re not going to be able to get it back simply by returning to a pre-2015 status quo. The pendulum needs to swing hard in the other direction for an extended period to reset expectations.
I don't think average Canadians understand the extent of the diminished mental capacity of many violent offenders. Fetal alcohol syndrome or life long use of hard drugs makes many incapable of contrition or sorrow for their actions. In these circumstances, rehabilitation through incarceration will not improve these individuals, but incarceration can reduce the risk more violent offences for society.
Violent offences specifically are rarely planned, and even immediate police presence doesn't always de-escalate them. There is a big difference in motivation between premeditated and unpremeditated crime.
Deterrence is, as you note, a joke - nobody thinks 'geez I might get 10 years for this' and those that do aren't much more deterred by ten years than by five. Both are plenty. People's brains just...don't work that way. Studies have (repeatedly) shown that the way you effectively deter crime is visible police presence and a likelihood of getting caught and promptly dealt with. So y'know, basically the opposite of what we currently have.
Have you heard of the Bailey McCourt case in Kelowna, BC? An ex-spouse, James Plover, murdered his ex-wife in broad daylight with a hammer! Earlier that day, as CTV News said, "Plover was convicted of domestic violence charges just hours before he allegedly killed McCourt. He was free to go as he awaited sentencing. That’s something McCourt’s family and supporters say needs to change."
He had previously been convicted of other violence against Bailey. There is no way he should have been free to walk the streets.
The whole gun confiscation initiative is starting to sound like the Covid exercise. The totalitarian no compromise approach used during. COVID is certainly what the shrill harridans of the Montreal hoplophobe movement desire. The Ottawa technocrats will then come up with processes to be carried out by “minimum wage plus a bit” currently unemployed youth (which I believe Nova Scotia/Cape Breton) has an ample supply of). They will be provided with black clothing and impressive IDs and badges but if course no self defence tools.
What I remember of the Covid exercise was cowardly civil servants setting up rules and procedures to be enforced by store clerks and restaurant waitresses hiding behind plexiglas because they were spit on and threatened. I dread the thought of gun seizures implemented by unemployed youth and desperate family people and wonder how many of these will have to die before the libs run out of hands to wring and crocodile tears to shed and go back to waiting until the last gun owner dies. And there is no way that Canadian police, who seem generally to have high moral values, signed up for seizing people’s property and leaving them at the mercy of the many criminals and drug addicts who will prey on them even more than they do now.
I really had hoped you would have asked him about his views on the inability of his members to reign in the pro Palestinian protests. Taking over our cities weekly. Particularly Toronto.
I wonder about the demographics of the perpetrators, especially the predatory youth. It all seems so unCanadian, very ghetto very hood. Like, where did these people come from? Or were people like them always in the population? But in the latter case, why are they emerging now?
I was glad to hear Matt mention the issue of over-crowded jails. My gut feeling has been that part of the reason people are released on bail is because there's no room in our provincial jails.
There needs to be a better job done determining who actually needs to be in pre-trial detention.
And next time Doug Ford expounds on the Federal gov't needing to reform bail, I hope to hear a reporter ask him about increasing jail capacity.
Impressive guest.
A few weeks ago I referred to the study showing that 63% of violent crime is committed by 1 % of the population and I tracked it down. Here is the link:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3969807/
And here is the key passage:
About one quarter of all those who were ever convicted of a violent crime (i.e., the offender group), corresponding to the most persistently violent 1 % of the study population, were responsible for a total of 63 % of all violent crime convictions in the country, while almost three quarters of all violent offenders, corresponding to 2.9 % of the population, were convicted only once or twice during the study period. This is in line with previous research that shows a small group of criminally active young adult men to be responsible for a large part of all violent crimes [3, 4, 33] and the high impact of a very small group of especially violent individuals indicated by the high reconviction rates among former prison detainees [8]. The numbers (and relative proportions) of violent convictions that theoretically could be prevented if individuals were stopped from committing further crimes at specific stages of relapsing into violence may be used to plan preventive strategies against violent crime (Table 2). If all violent crime careers could come to a stop after a third conviction (which would require interventions directed at 1 % of the total population), more than 50 % of all convictions for violent crime in the total population would be prevented.
That last sentence is a great argument for "three (violent) strikes and you're out". I am a big "incentives matter" guy but incentives obviously do NOT matter to the 1% who are "bad seeds" and will never change. The only answer is to get those dudes off the street FOREVER.
You don't need to get them off the streets forever. The number of offenders who don't at least greatly slow down their violent offending by their thirties is an even smaller subset of that group. Even that 1% tend to be a LOT less criminal and violent at 30, and even less so at 35. The 0.1% are the ones who there's not much to be done with. Even they might manage OK with a sufficiently structured environment - I doubt you actually need 24 hour locking up for a lot of them.
This type of thinking is exactly our problem! I do not want our resources wasted parsing thru these bozos...three strikes you're out. We are going wait everyday for some criminal to "age out"??!! There are thousands of people turning 30 or 35 every day. Let's be proactive and get them off the street way before then.
Nice data.
The simple solution is escalation of consequences based on behaviour, long overdue. Patterns of behaviour are reliable.
I don't care (and no-one should) what the data says about the man's likelihood of reoffending based on large samples; this is a silly trap. What matters is the behaviour of this individual, which should decide their consequences. At some point the consequences will be so dire they are effectively removed, and we should all be grateful.
That's an interesting twist on the "1 percenters" in society today.
Enjoyed the interview, very articulate guest from the TPA. Matt, your ER story sounds the same as our city ER. Regarding the firearms confiscation - if there was a Nobel Prize equivalent for government waste and political pandering, the Liberals would have won by a long shot (no pun intended..).
Even ‘thirteen strikes and you’re out’ would be a huge improvement.
It's ultimately an elite culture problem. They don't see a problem so the problem isn't being dealt with. Let them eat cake.
Very sensible, knowledgeable, articulate, and eloquent guest. Thank you Clayton Campbell! And you, too, Matt.
The "Liberals" are very smart at stupid destruction.
Thank you Matt,Clayton. I had lost all hope in humanity. Good to hear some people do still care. Much appreciated
I think longer sentences are necessary for incapacitation of prolific offenders, but I don’t think they’ll do much for deterrence. The people who commit crimes aren’t thinking about whether they shouldn’t commit a crime because they’d be in prison for 10 years instead of 5. What would actually deter them is making it more certain that they’re going to be caught and punished.
Back in the early 2000s, car theft was a huge problem in BC’s Lower Mainland. The core of the problem was also a small number of prolific criminals. What put an end to to the epidemic of car theft was a “Bait Car” program: specially modified cars equipped with video cameras, trackers, and the ability to disable them remotely and trap the thief inside the car until the police arrived to arrest them. Something like this is needed on a wider scale until we reset expectations that criminal behavior will be punished.
What seems to have happened over the past decade is that criminals realized that they weren’t likely to be caught or face consequences. Policing levels had been cut, but even before that we were likely getting by with a lighter level of policing because there was an expectation that you couldn’t commit crime with impunity. Once that expectation changed, we’re not going to be able to get it back simply by returning to a pre-2015 status quo. The pendulum needs to swing hard in the other direction for an extended period to reset expectations.
I don't think average Canadians understand the extent of the diminished mental capacity of many violent offenders. Fetal alcohol syndrome or life long use of hard drugs makes many incapable of contrition or sorrow for their actions. In these circumstances, rehabilitation through incarceration will not improve these individuals, but incarceration can reduce the risk more violent offences for society.
Violent offences specifically are rarely planned, and even immediate police presence doesn't always de-escalate them. There is a big difference in motivation between premeditated and unpremeditated crime.
Deterrence is, as you note, a joke - nobody thinks 'geez I might get 10 years for this' and those that do aren't much more deterred by ten years than by five. Both are plenty. People's brains just...don't work that way. Studies have (repeatedly) shown that the way you effectively deter crime is visible police presence and a likelihood of getting caught and promptly dealt with. So y'know, basically the opposite of what we currently have.
Have you heard of the Bailey McCourt case in Kelowna, BC? An ex-spouse, James Plover, murdered his ex-wife in broad daylight with a hammer! Earlier that day, as CTV News said, "Plover was convicted of domestic violence charges just hours before he allegedly killed McCourt. He was free to go as he awaited sentencing. That’s something McCourt’s family and supporters say needs to change."
He had previously been convicted of other violence against Bailey. There is no way he should have been free to walk the streets.
The whole gun confiscation initiative is starting to sound like the Covid exercise. The totalitarian no compromise approach used during. COVID is certainly what the shrill harridans of the Montreal hoplophobe movement desire. The Ottawa technocrats will then come up with processes to be carried out by “minimum wage plus a bit” currently unemployed youth (which I believe Nova Scotia/Cape Breton) has an ample supply of). They will be provided with black clothing and impressive IDs and badges but if course no self defence tools.
What I remember of the Covid exercise was cowardly civil servants setting up rules and procedures to be enforced by store clerks and restaurant waitresses hiding behind plexiglas because they were spit on and threatened. I dread the thought of gun seizures implemented by unemployed youth and desperate family people and wonder how many of these will have to die before the libs run out of hands to wring and crocodile tears to shed and go back to waiting until the last gun owner dies. And there is no way that Canadian police, who seem generally to have high moral values, signed up for seizing people’s property and leaving them at the mercy of the many criminals and drug addicts who will prey on them even more than they do now.
I really had hoped you would have asked him about his views on the inability of his members to reign in the pro Palestinian protests. Taking over our cities weekly. Particularly Toronto.
I wonder about the demographics of the perpetrators, especially the predatory youth. It all seems so unCanadian, very ghetto very hood. Like, where did these people come from? Or were people like them always in the population? But in the latter case, why are they emerging now?
Clayton Ruby?! (Your intro oops).
I caught that too!
Fixed that! It’s embarrassing. I made that error like fifteen times but fixed them in editing.
14/15ths of them.
Yeah, when putting the words Canadian + Law + Clayton + ???? together that is completely understandable!
I was glad to hear Matt mention the issue of over-crowded jails. My gut feeling has been that part of the reason people are released on bail is because there's no room in our provincial jails.
There needs to be a better job done determining who actually needs to be in pre-trial detention.
And next time Doug Ford expounds on the Federal gov't needing to reform bail, I hope to hear a reporter ask him about increasing jail capacity.