"There is an old legal saying, 'hard cases make bad law'. Nowhere is that saying proven better than in the recent pardon of Graham James, a convicted child molester. How is it that such a criminal received a pardon? Surely the system is skewed towards criminals and it is time to clamp down on pardons?
Actually, the system is not skewed and pardons are a valuable tool in preventing crime and rehabilitating criminals. It is important to be clear what a pardon actually does. The term 'pardon' suggests a wiping clean -- almost like a religious remission of sin -- in fact, the reality is quite different.
A pardon does not remove a criminal record. The record remains and any entry on a sex offender registry is unaffected. Should someone with a pardon commit another crime the pardon can be revoked. Foreign travel is not made easier -- the United States border authorities pay little attention to a pardon. The only thing a pardon does is allow someone legitimately to say they do not have a criminal conviction.
Being able to say "I have no criminal convictions" is important. Many jobs require a clean record and holding down a job is a significant step towards full rehabilitation. Obtaining a pardon for a serious offence, while largely administrative, requires someone convicted to have stayed out of the criminal system for five full years following the completion of their sentence.
The person seeking a pardon must show five years of "good conduct," which the Criminal Records Act defines as "behaviour that is consistent with and demonstrates a law-abiding lifestyle." Five years is a long time and, broadly put, if someone stays out of trouble for that long they are very likely going to stay out of the system. Very few pardons are revoked because of new offences.
Since 1970, more than 400,000 Canadians have received pardons. Of those, less than one in twenty have had their pardons revoked, indicating that the vast majority of pardon remain crime-free in the community. The pardon system works.
A pardon allows someone who has in fact turned their life around to go beyond their earlier offence and become a productive citizen. The prospect of a pardon is an incentive to persons convicted of a crime to stay out of trouble and is a useful tool for rehabilitation.
And rehabilitation is important. Perpetual incarceration is not an option for any but the most dangerous of offenders. People convicted of serious offences are going to be released back into society. Unless there are incentives for them to turn away from their past lives they will inevitably drift back to crime; this is especially so if they are always to be marked as criminals without hope of redemption.
Perhaps we could rename "pardon" to be something less evocative -- say "remission of conviction". Perhaps pardons could be made more difficult to get for sexual based offences.
But the concept of an eventual pardon for good behaviour is appropriate and ought not to be eliminated. Schiller said "cowards have done good and kind actions, but a coward never pardoned."
It takes courage to pardon a criminal. It requires that we be open to more than just punishment and to remember that no one in this world is perfect. It means we have to accept that people can change and that the criminal of today can be the decent person of tomorrow.
7 comments:
Great post James - and I agree with you 100%.
Unfortunately we're fighting a government "to the illiterates, for the illiterates, and by the illiterates"... Reason, sound evidence, and scientific facts scare them. They like to pronounce the word "facts" with "air quotes"...
Shame. While civilizations that grow and succeed do so because of a renaissance of science, culture, and education in general, those which fail do so because of the "culture of stupid"... the "idiocracy" as it has been dubbed in recent pop culture.
It's such a high profile case, politicians on all sides are looking to make hay with it. While I agree about anger or profit motivated crimes, I wonder about sexual abuse cases like this. Do these people honestly get better or do they just learn to hide it better?
I would much rather they addressed the problems with bail conditions. People applying for a pardon have already been out in the neighborhood yet those on bail are already in trouble.
Morton thinks this,"Since 1970, more than 400,000 Canadians have received pardons. Of those, less than one in twenty have had their pardons revoked, indicating that the vast majority of pardon remain crime-free in the community. The pardon system works."
all the while the Globe editorital board thinks this.....There have been 234,000 pardons issued since 1970, and fewer than 3 per cent have been rescinded"
Morton, my problem is this.
You're a liar and so are the people who fucking run this country and the media.
You are some big fucking lawyer and some big fucking professor but you and your PROGRESSIVE friends can't even get your fucking numbers correct.
You're a liar James and you know it.
This is just more proof.
Anon, the Globe numbers are even better than 1 in 20 -- that's 5%. I don't know where the Globe numbers came from but they mine are from the Feds -- and they are the same numbers the Post quoted. As for being a Big lawyer, well, maybe one day...
Although the pardon system works, and most persons who receive pardons to not reoffend, your argument starts with a quote directed at the James pardon specifically. I don't think that the fact that pardons are a useful tool in general speaks to that pardon in particular.
I don't think that someone has to be illiterate or an idiot to believe that criminals like James - ie child molesters, sex offenders, murderers, etc. - should not be receiving pardons. It is likewise not necessary that an individual be an idiot to believe that the system needs tightening up if someone like James receives a pardon so soon after his conviction.
Further, I think it is a stretch to suggest , since "only" 1 out of 20 have had their pardons revoked, that they have remained crime free in the community. Some may have committed crimes which resulted in no revocation of pardon and some may have committed crimes which have gone undetected (which most sexually based crimes against children do).
The fact that 20,000 persons out of 400,000 have been caught committing crimes serious enough to result in a revocation of pardon is hardly a ringing endorsement of the pardon system.
I for one believe that justice - not necessarily punishment - requires that some offences only qualify for pardon in rare and unique circumstances. If that makes me part of the "idiocracy" so be it.
" The fact that 20,000 persons out of 400,000 have been caught committing crimes serious enough to result in a revocation of pardon is hardly a ringing endorsement of the pardon system. "
If the pardon system did not exist, how do you think those numbers would change? Do you think recidivism rate would be lower or higher?
"If the pardon system did not exist, how do you think those numbers would change? Do you think recidivism rate would be lower or higher?"
I never suggested that those numbers would change.
Post a Comment