Alberta Review Board must follow the science

Politics has no place in decisions on NCR cases, Jeremy Cheng says.

With all the recent attention placed on Matthew de Grood and the Alberta Review Board, debate has swirled around whether tribunals actually protect public safety while promoting our constitutional rights to social reintegration.

De Grood is a high-profile case; however, there are many others in Canada found not criminally responsible (NCR) for violent offences. From the “black box” of decision-making emerges the question — how does the board really make decisions to release people found

NCR?

If the tribunal is worth its weight in public tax dollars, it would be well served considering the factors that actually predict whether someone reoffends after release.

Although Canadian review boards do not have a onesize-fit-all approach, they consistently rely on expert testimony to decide if someone is fit for the community. Following the science when making decisions that impact the lives and well-being of victims and perpetrators is a good place to start.

Enter forensic psychologists — highly trained specialists and leaders in evidence-based practice and decision-making. Their expert testimony is based on decades of psychological research that inform efforts to predict, lessen, and manage future criminal behaviour.

Although high-profile cases draw our attention and bring out strong emotions — as they should — it can spell trouble when we confuse fact and fiction. Psychological research can clarify common misunderstandings behind crime.

Take for example how the presence of a mental illness alone is actually poorly connected to criminal behaviour, except in extreme circumstances, yet the opposite is portrayed in popular media.

Another example is how the severity or egregiousness of a crime is not a predictor of future criminality, but again, this is often mistakenly labelled as being the case.

Focusing on the facts helps experts and tribunals make evidence-based decisions that benefit all parties.

A program of research from Alberta Hospital Edmonton has shown that the rate of violent reoffending for the Alberta NCR population is extremely low — just two per cent after five years post-release — especially when compared to those released from traditional Canadian correctional settings (25 per cent).

Research also suggests that the specific risk factors linked to criminal reoffending predict Alberta Review Board release decisions. These include historical factors such as criminal history, but also those that can be managed through psychological interventions, such as criminal thinking styles.

The Alberta Review Board may also adjust their decisions to account for treatment changes on risk factors that bear upon public safety risk.

This means that the board is required to be thoughtful about the constitutional citizen rights of individual access to treatment and community rehabilitation.

For those more persuaded by punishment, people found NCR for homicide in Alberta spend substantial amounts of time under the board — 10 years on average.

Although most can agree that public safety is paramount, we can also agree that high-stakes board decisions are best made when guided by the evidence and expertise of forensic psychologists.

More facts, less politics — let science and humanity lead the way.