Quick fixes from politicians won't stop crime

by A. Alan Borovoy
General Counsel
Canadian Civil Liberties Association

Every time a high-profile crime is committed - such as the tragic murder at Just Desserts restaurant - politicians inundate us with simplistic solutions.

Following certain grisly murders, the Reform Party, for example, has been urging a binding national referendum on capital punishment.

The impulse to execute may be strong, but the factual foundation for it is weak. From the murder statistics in this country, you simply couldn't tell at what point capital punishment has been available. The highest recorded homicide rate in Canadian history occurred in 1975: 3.09 for every 100,000 people. Yet that was the year before capital punishment was finally abolished for the murderers of everyone including police officers and prison guards. Since that time, the homicide rate has fluctuated without exceeding its 1975 level. But, just as murderers are not deterred by the fear of capital punishment, so are demagogic politicians not deterred by its relative ineffectiveness.

While the federal government has resisted the allure of capital punishment, it has nevertheless proposed some simplistic solutions of its own. A rather bizarre one would forbid selling to youngsters under 18, board games "in which the players ... pretend to engage in violent criminal activity". While I don't think the world would come to an end if these board games disappeared, it strains credulity to believe that the proposed prohibition would significantly enhance our collective safety.

Another provision would impose a comparable ban on the sale of cards "a dominant characteristic of which is a ... pictorial depiction of an actual violent criminal". I could be persuaded that there is no redeeming value in having our youngsters collect pictures of Jesse James, John Dillinger, or Billy the Kid. But I also find it hard to imagine that there is any particular harm in it. In any event, how would the banning of such cards lower the crime rate?

Not to be out-done by their federal counterparts, some Toronto councillors proposed a by-law that would prohibit "loitering" in public places at certain hours. With much fanfare, the advocates of this by-law claimed that, by enacting it, the city could "begin ... reversing the trend of ... fear" caused by the "alarming increase in random violent crimes".

The proposed by-law was explicitly designed to empower a police officer to "defuse a situation priorto a criminal law matter occurring" [italics added]. (The federal criminal law already permits such police action when certain crimes are imminent.) But how will a police officer know, prior to what is imminent, that a crime is going to occur? Clairvoyance is not one of the qualifications for a police job. The danger is that, in today's Toronto, such a by-law might be seen by certain police officers as an invitation to encroach upon young black men. Because of racial stereotyping, the behaviour of blacks is more likely than that of whites to be perceived as particularly threatening.

While the enactment of such a by-law might reduce unpleasantness on some of our streets, it wouldn't likely make a significant dent in the violent crime problem. Most violent crimes arise among people who already know each other or in hold-up situations; such crimes are not usually an outgrowth of excessive loitering. Although the by-law did not pass, it serves to dramatize the demagogic temptation.

These are only a few examples of a prevalent proclivity among our politicians - quick fixes with unworkable panaceas. In the meantime, who is seriously addressing what might be done about crime?