 |
| John Hill |
Auto thefts have become big news, especially in Toronto. The Ontario and federal governments are pressed to find ways to stamp out the illegal activity. Ontario is proposing to get tough on this type of crime by imposing a 10-year licence suspension for a first offence, a 15-year licence suspension for a second offence and a lifetime licence suspension for a third offence. The licence suspensions would only apply to convictions where the court found that aggravating factors were involved in committing the offence, such as violence, use of a weapon, use of force, threat or the pursuit of financial gain.
The federal government is taking a multi-faceted approach that includes changes to the Radiocommunication Act to regulate devices used to steal cars, consultation on using wireless devices in auto theft, and modernization of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations to ensure they incorporate technological advancements to deter auto theft. The federal authorities are also looking to improve co-ordination and intelligence sharing with police forces and giving authority to the Canada Border Services Agency to search shipping containers that may contain stolen vehicles destined for foreign transport.
Such changes are crucial to prevent future auto thefts and to assist in retrieving stolen vehicles, but they are not the stuff that hits a home run with the “get tough on crime” advocates. For that crowd, now spurred on by opposition voices in Parliament, harsher penalties for convicted thieves with ties to violence, organized crime and money laundering are proposed.
All this would be appropriate if meting out harsher penalties worked in preventing crime. The truth, however, is that increasing penalties is meant to appease political criticism rather than reduce crime.
On Sept. 16, 2022, over 70 criminologists, social scientists, legal experts and civil society organizations responded to a CBC news report that claimed “experts” were calling for stricter penalties for “prolific offenders.” The deterrent effect claimed was factually inaccurate and misleading. It was clear that decades of research from Canada and comparable jurisdictions like the United States, United Kingdom and Australia has shown that longer prison sentences do not reduce crime.
Among the data cited by the signatories to the letter rebutting the CBC report were these facts:
- Lengthy prison sentences do not deter individuals (specific deterrence) or others (general deterrence) from committing crimes. There is some evidence that certainty of capture and sanction may impact behaviour. A position paper from the federal Department of Justice summarizes the evidence nicely: severity of punishment — i.e., longer prison sentences — does not deter people from committing crimes.
- There is no reliable way to predict who will go on to commit crimes in general or serious, violent acts in particular in the future. On the contrary, research has shown that attempts to make such predictions are unreliable and discriminatory, especially against Indigenous peoples, Black people, other racialized communities and women.
- Research shows that sending someone to prison — whether before trial or after sentencing — increases the likelihood that they will be charged with and convicted of a crime in the future. There are many reasons for this. Half of those sentenced to federal prison have histories of trauma and childhood abuse. Prison conditions are harsh, and people often leave with further physical and emotional scars that they are ill-equipped to deal with. Treatment for mental illness and problematic substance use behind bars is abysmal. Removing individuals from the broader community is intensely destabilizing and tears apart families and support networks, significantly increasing the risk that a legacy of trauma will be passed on to another generation.
The deterrent effect of imposing extended jail terms doesn’t prevent crime. Most people who steal goods feel they will never get caught. Those who do it professionally will continue doing it regardless of the penalty. Increased penalties are a political solution, not to eliminate crime, but to garner favour with the get-tough-on crime proponents. Imposing longer jail terms for car thieves is like locking doors to keep honest people out. It will keep honest people from stealing cars.
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.