Class Notes (811,170)
Canada (494,539)
Psychology (2,648)
PSYC 2400 (267)
Adelle Forth (109)
Lecture 18

Lecture 18

9 Pages
Unlock Document

Carleton University
PSYC 2400
Adelle Forth

Lecture 18- Parole, dangerous offenders, longterm offenders Thursday, March 10, 2011 - cost for Ontario provincial system: $52,000/year for offender o 99,000 federal o 182,000 female - Next Tuesday: guest lecture (research on crime desistance) - How should we protect society from high-risk violent offenders o Preventative intention: we have put habitual criminals behind bars o 1810-1812: if someone commits 3 or more offences, should be classified as habitual criminal o This is nothing new - 1977: dangerous offender legislation enacted o Purpose: try, flag/detect high-risk, violent offenders o Can then incapacitate them, put them in jail indefinitely so they can’t hurt anyone else o Individuals who committed serious, personal-injury offences (aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault, etc.) o Before they escalate to homicide, hopefully o Paul Bernardo  Didn’t get him before he committed homicide  Scarborough rapist—60-80  Escalated to sexual homicide  Declared a dangerous offender, not for the murders he committed but for the sexual assaults o Indeterminate sentence—no warrant expiry (could stay there until natural death—up to parole board to determine when you get released)  Indeterminate—at some point, could get released  Not the same as indefinite o Must have a past history of violent offences  There is one provision: if you commit a sexual assault that has extreme brutality and it would compel the expectation that yuo would commit another offense, the DO legislation says that yuo could be declared a dangerous offender  Our youngest one in Canada was 15—in Victoria—sexually assaulted a 3-month-old baby • Horrendous damage • Faced adult sanctions, was declared dangerous offender for that one assault  Typically you’ll see sex offenders with 10-20 past offences o Must have mental health official testify that you are high risk for future violence o Most DO’s are men - Crown looks at case to put forward an application o Depends on past history o Sometimes there will be plea bargaining with Crown to avoid DO—85% are successful, but very costly proceeding o Have to have testimony by mental health professional o We have 455 (only 20 are in the community)  Vast majority are never released  1 has been deported, 61 have died in prison o Ontario and BC—the two provinces that use it the most o Most DO’s are sex offenders (79%) even though legislation was not initially targeted towards sexual offenders  Most of the offenders they focus on is child sex offenders (molesters) o No females currently  Only two in Canada since legislation  Marlene Moore—suicide in prison  Lisa Neve—overturned on appeal  Relatively rare - In 1997: change—added new status called “long term offender” o Had to have committed violent offence that’s eligible for minimum 2-year offence o Substantial risk for violent re-offending o **Both need risk assessment (potential for future violence) o BUT difference: needs to be some sort of probability of controlling the risk in the community  Treatment and responsivity o **DO—just probability of committing violent offence and past history o Characteristics  Determinate sentence (ex. 4 years)  BUT after warrant expiry, need long-term supervision order up to 10 years in community • If you violate, could impose a new sentence  513 LTO (4 women)  213 in community (they get definite sentence) • 23 have revoked their conditions (back in jail) • 2 deported • 2 unlawfully at large—disappeared  Similarly with DO’s, LTO seems to be targetting sex offenders • Not uncommon that many countries target sex offenders for preventative detention o Crown applies for assessment (remember 85% are successful)  No application—sentenced regularly  **R v. Johnson (2003)—we should have been given LTO hearing, should have been given the least restrictive measures—DO is most restrictive, should have first been considered for LTO  LTO hearing FIRST • Most offenders don’t like it • If you’re found LTO, get a sentence (more than 2 years), supervision order (up to 10 years) • If you’re not considered LTO, could be given determinate sentence • OR could have DO hearing  Risk assessment measures play a HUGE role when it comes to this  Issues with DO hearing • 5 mental health professionals, judge has to listen to all of this and make decision • Also problem because of the construct of psychopaths— getting evidence presented from court on psychopathy— typically the prosecution and defence psychologists say different things, discrepant testimony, judge gets confused o They’re cautious because once you’re labelled DO, you have that label forever - Death penalty o Blue: don’t have death penalty (Canada, most Scandinavia, western Europe, Austria, new Zealand) o Green: only during times of war (South America) o Orange: have this penalty on the books, but there’s moratorium, don’t apply it (Russia) o Red: death penalty (US, China, Japan) o **Some have it not only for homicide, but for treason and other things too. US just has it for homicide o We abolished it in 1976  Book: Last to Die (two guys killed cop, the last to hang in Canada in 1962) o Class opinions (sentencing survey)  Strongly favour: 15% • Comm: 22%  Somewhat favour: 36% • Comm:32%  Somewhat opposed: 25% • Comm: 30%  Strongly opposed: 24% • Comm: 16% o US: many more people support death penalty (84% yes)  BUT if you ask, “If you could put person in jail for life with no parole”, support for death penalty drops to 46%  Most US states have this alternative already o US abolished death penalty in 1972 due to discriminatory use  Towards poor individuals with bad representation, racially biased, mentally ill o Reinstated in 1976 o Up until 2005, US had juvenile death penalty (for capital murder, transferred to adult court)—rare o Banned juvenile death penalty—2005 o Trial conducted in two phases  Determine verdict (guilty or not guilty)  Sentencing • Jurors hear testimony about background, why person committed offence, mental disorder, friends and relatives give testimony, etc. • Anything possible to convince jurors nto to give death penalty • Mitigating factor (lower likelihood of coming back with death penalty—age, mental disorder, what happened during offence, prior criminal history) • CROWN will look at aggravating factors (committed murder for personal gain, committed offence while committing other offences, psychopathy) • **Most mental disorders are mitigating—only psychopathy is aggravating because of the construct of psychopathy  Put on death row—need to be competent to be executed • Must understand what is going to happen, the consequences (like with competency to stand trial) • Sometimes people develop delusional disorder, depression • Mental health officials treat you so you know you’re going to die, so they can kill you • BIG ethical debate—should officials start treating individuals on death row? • Medical association in US said they’re ethically required to provide treatment, don’t care about legal outcome o Characteristics of death row offenders  98.9% male (61 women)  18-85 year
More Less

Related notes for PSYC 2400

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.