 |
| Michael Crowley |
But having said that, I can easily say that having victims attend hearings and read impact statements changes the emotional tenor of any hearing, and is often very useful in gauging the attitude of the incarcerated person and their understanding of the harm they have caused.
One such case involves J.R., a person convicted of murdering his wife and two children in Hamilton, Ont., in 1976. He was sentenced to life in prison with a 25-year period of full parole ineligibility. J.R. denied killing his wife or children but was convicted after a lengthy trial.
J.R.’s parents-in-law wrote numerous letters to the board over the years, expressing their anguish over his crimes. Particularly upsetting was that while their daughter and granddaughter’s bodies were found within a few days of the murders in bodies of water near Hamilton, their grandson’s body never was.
While they always wrote the board and attended hearings, they were unable to address the board orally until 1999. I conducted a number of J.R.’s hearings, but one stands out. The elderly couple’s victim impact statements were riveting and emotional. At least for me, the other two members and the other observers who were there. But they appeared to have no impact on J.R. He seemed not to be listening as they were speaking and appeared to be cleaning off specks of dust from the table where he was sitting. I challenged him about his evident lack of concern or emotional response — when everyone else clearly felt both. His reply was that he always had difficulty showing emotion. Clearly, this was not true given other file information. He was not granted any form of release that day, nor for many years past his eligibility dates; not because he refused to admit his guilt, but because in the absence of knowing why he killed his family, it was not feasible for the board to conclude that his risk for violently reoffending was not undue.
J.R. was evidently able to satisfy the board, in future decisions, that his risk would not be undue, and is currently on full parole in Ontario.
There is another case that will always stand out in my memory. This was actually the first case in Ontario, and one of the first in the country, in which a victim presented a victim impact statement to the board at the outset of a hearing.
It stands out in my memory for that reason, but also because the victim could easily have died, and listening to her recount the events and her ongoing fears was rather akin to listening to someone speaking from the grave.
The hearing occurred in 1999 and because it was the first one that involved a victim who was making an oral presentation, there was interest from the board’s national office as well as staff from the regional office who were there to assist the victim.
The victim was a young woman who had been dating, somewhat seriously, the inmate over a few months. In her statement she said that she had decided to end the relationship, and did so after a day at the Canadian National Exhibition in Toronto. She waited until he had driven to her family’s residence (where she still resided) to tell him that their relationship was over and then dashed into the house, fearing his temper.
Unfortunately, he followed her into the house by barging in and followed her upstairs where she had gone to her bedroom. He then dragged her down the stairs from the second floor by her hair, into the kitchen, where he threw her to the floor and grabbed a knife. The victim’s sister was in the house and hearing the struggle and the victim’s screams she ran into the kitchen and tried to use the telephone attached to the wall in order to call 911. The offender managed to rip the phone off the wall, but the call had gone through and police were dispatched to the house.
The victim’s younger sister did her best to pull him off the victim, but as he was both large and strong, her efforts were unsuccessful. The offender both stabbed the victim in the chest, and slashed at her throat with the knife he had grabbed, but police arrived before he was able to strike a mortal blow.
The victim, a young professional woman, wore a scarf around her neck because of the scars she suffered on her throat.
In listening to her read her statement, sitting with her parents and her sister, I could not help but think that she could well have died, and for no reason other than jealous rage. Her statement was riveting and very impactful on both myself and the other member that I was sitting with. In fact, I remember having to recess for a short period because of the emotional impact felt by everyone in the hearing room.
The offender, however, who was a security guard at the time of the offence, showed little emotion.
Clearly this was as serious an offence as one could discern, ending just short of murder, which clearly had been the offender’s intent. File information noted that he had not undertaken or completed any treatment programming while incarcerated to that point, although he said he had read books on the subject. He was not being supported for a release by the Correctional Service of Canada, and seemed to think that the fact he was currently in a romantic relationship should count in his favour as it demonstrated his current approach to women.
Given the serious nature of the offence and his lack of treatment, the decision of the board was a negative one. That same decision would likely have been reached based on file information alone, but the impact of the victim’s statement brought home to me and my colleague the suffering and trauma felt by the victim at the time, as well as that of her family.
Not all verbal impact statements were as significant as the two I have described but in each instance I listened carefully to what the victim (or victims) was saying. In my mind, it took courage for anyone to go through the process of entering a federal prison with its security protocols, and then coming to a hearing room, with everyone else already seated and board members turning toward them expectantly.
I always had victims read their statements before the hearing formally started, primarily because I believed it would be easier for them to deal with their emotions before having to re-visit the offence(s) during the hearing itself. Victim Impact Statements were required to be shared with inmates no less than 15 days before the hearing and so every inmate had the opportunity to read and review any statement. Most chose to do so, but some did not. One member would carefully review the statement while the victim was reading, to ensure that no new information was being presented. And prior to the hearing every written statement would be vetted by board staff to ensure that its guidelines were being followed about content and language.
Emotions could rise during hearings when an offender was describing the offence, especially if there was a loss of life. Although the victims would be counselled in advance by staff not to react during such occasions, there were times when I would be hearing sounds of dismay after the victims had heard such descriptions.
I chaired hearings in which as many as 22 victims provided statements, though in the majority of instances there would be one or two statements.
Victims are able to request that the board impose certain special conditions, usually involving having no contact. The concern expressed could be for the potential of physical harm, but the board also considered psychological harm if a victim observed an offender in the community, close to where they were residing.
I don’t honestly know if, by attending a hearing, any victim felt a sense of closure about what had happened to them or their loved one. I appreciated, however, those times when victims would speak with the board’s staff, and thank us for the thoroughness of the hearing, even if they disagreed with the decision. I always hoped, in giving the oral decision in such cases, that the board’s rationale would be clear, not only to the inmate and their supporters, but also to the victims.
This is the second half of a two-part series. Part one: Victims as part of parole process.
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.