PREVENTING TRAGEDIES
It's the system, not the parole board, that needs investigating, writes Peter Mcknight
On Sept. 7, the RCMP reported that Saskatchewan stabbing suspect Myles Sanderson had died in police custody. So ended a trail of death and destruction that began three days earlier, resulting in the deaths of 12 people, including Sanderson and his brother, and injuries to 18 others.
Since Sanderson was on statutory release from prison, many people have echoed the words of Prince Albert grand council Chief Brian Hardlotte, who said that the Parole Board of Canada failed the community: “The parole board let this young fellow out … this tragedy could have been avoided.”
Maybe, maybe not. The board did play a role in the tragedy, and it plans to investigate its decision together with the Correctional Service of Canada, which has authority over federal prisons. Federal Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino welcomed the probe, saying that “the process begins there, but it certainly doesn't end there.”
That's exactly right, since the parole board's role is confined to the conclusion of a long process that ended with the slayings. And that entire process needs to be investigated.
The board didn't, in fact, originally release Sanderson from prison. He was released, in effect, by the federal government, since the law requires that offenders be released after serving two-thirds of their sentences.
While many people believe offenders should serve their entire sentences in prison, statutory release plays a critical role in reintegration of the offender into the community. While statutory release isn't parole, offenders are placed under the watchful eye of a parole officer and are subject to various conditions, such as obtaining education or employment and maintaining sobriety. If the offender violates those conditions, he can be sent back to jail, and this is exactly what happened to Sanderson. He initially followed the conditions set for him, including avoiding drug and alcohol use, which had been a key factor in his long history of violence. However, he then resumed his relationship with his common law wife in violation of a condition to stay away from her, and his release was suspended.
Three months later, the parole board cancelled that suspension and Sanderson was re-released. That is the only decision the board made, and therefore the only one it can investigate. And it wasn't an altogether inappropriate decision.
After all, if his release was revoked, he would have spent, at most, less than a year in prison before his sentence was completed. He would then have been released without the supervision of a parole officer and without conditions. For high risk offenders like Sanderson, statutory release is therefore often preferable to serving their entire sentences.
Indeed, according to data from Public Safety Canada, most offenders complete statutory release successfully, with little more than one per cent committing a further violent offence. That's one per cent too many, of course, but those offenders aren't likely to do any better with no supervision at all.
At most then, keeping Sanderson in prison would have probably delayed the tragedy instead of preventing it. And preventing future tragedies like this, rather than attacking the parole board, is what we must focus on.
The slayings could have been prevented had Sanderson been declared a dangerous offender. The Criminal Code permits a court to make a dangerous offender (DO) designation if the offender displays a pattern of serious violent offences and is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint.
If the designation is made, the court can impose an indeterminate sentence, which means the offender might never be released from prison. At the end of fiscal year 2019-20, there were 860 designated offenders, 736 of which remained in custody.
While a DO designation could have prevented this tragedy, it's normally made after an offender is convicted rather than when his sentence is expiring. The investigation ought, therefore, to consider not only the parole board's decision but also the decision made by prosecutors years ago — specifically, whether Sanderson met all the criteria for a DO designation, and whether prosecutors considered applying for it.
However, while preventing future tragedies, a DO designation can only be made after a tragedy has already occurred, after an offender has already victimized people. And Sanderson had victimized a number of people before the stabbings had occurred.
Which requires us to look back beyond the prosecutors' decision to Sanderson's troubled past, and what led to his history of violence. And on that point, it's worth looking more closely at the DO statistics.
Of the 860 DOS at the end of 2019-20, 36.3 per cent were Indigenous. That's even higher than the astronomically high percentage (26.1 per cent) of Indigenous people in the federal prison population. Sanderson's case notwithstanding then, Indigenous offenders are already more likely to receive a DO designation than non-aboriginal inmates.
The DO designation might prevent them from committing further offences, which is important given that Indigenous people are typically the victims of crimes committed by Indigenous offenders. Indeed, most or all of Sanderson's victims were Indigenous.
Yet we would be hard-pressed to conclude the DO stats represent any kind of success. On the contrary, they highlight the problem: The continued victimization of Indigenous people by both offenders and the system. And this, in turn, is the result of the systemic discrimination Indigenous people have suffered throughout Canadian history.
This, rather than the parole board decision, is where the investigation Mendicino welcomes must end.
The parole board let this young fellow out … this tragedy could have been avoided.