Canada must establish an Office for Crime Prevention and Victim Justice to reduce rates of victimization by 50% in the next few years and establish services, reparation and justice for victims at standards at least as good as comparable countries, such as UK and USA.
Canada must establish an Office for Crime Prevention and Victim Justice to reduce rates of victimization by 50% in the next few years and establish services, reparation and justice for victims at standards at least as good as comparable countries, such as UK and USA. These proposals were presented on September 29 to House of Commons Justice and Human Rights Committee
But this is a long way from enough to meet obligations to victims of crime at standards equivalent to what has existed for some time in other comparable democracies. These standards are in my book Rights for Victims of Crime: Rebalancing Justice. The book identifies fundamental rights – obligations – for victims of crime, and shows how
- police can be first in aid and put victims at their zenith (see chapter 3);
- services can help victims to cope and recover (see chapter 4);[1]
- reparation can restore (see chapter 5);
- victims can be heard (see chapter 6);
- a comprehensive model law and budget can put all of the above in place (see chapter 8 and the appendix).
The book also asserts that prevention of crime before it happens is an important right for victims. Indeed, we have the knowledge today to reduce victimization in Canada by 50% in the next few years consistent with Canada´s commitment to the UN Sustainable Development Goals. My book on Science and Secrets of Ending Violent Crime sets this out using proven strategies from Canada and other democracies. These are being considered in cities in Canada, though the lack of funding for community safety planning and the strategies to reduce crime must be significantly improved.
Every year, millions of Canadians are victims of crime suffering losses, trauma and more. Cumulatively these are estimated in tens of billions of dollars in tangible and intangible losses.
Unfortunately we continue more of the same and so do not get different results. We allow violence and property crime because we fund short term projects in pilot areas instead of sustained and adequate investments in smart prevention that would cut crime significantly. The services and justice after the victimization exist some of the time in some of the provinces to some of the victims, but they are generally not adequate or consistent across Canada to meet enough of the needs.
The current groups in the federal bureaucracy are inadequate to the challenge of raising the Canadian response to obligations to the standards of other democratic countries. This is because they are too low in the bureaucracy, rarely have the skills needed and certainly do not have funds or mandate to make a difference. In sum, we need a Prevention and Victim Justice Services Canada and not just a Corrections Service Canada.
The federal Victim Bill of Rights unfortunately is only symbolic, as it does not provide a remedy, it puts an impractical onus on victims (for instance to ask for information9 and has not yet been accompanied by any evaluation of whether more victims have got more of the rights in the Act. Many US States have similar constitutional amendments, which have not made progress on the ground. Fortunately, the US adopted the Victims of Crime Act in 1984 that has used financial incentives and technical skills from their impressive Office for Victims of Crime to get States to implement a range of services and compensation as well as foster training and conferences.
The US adopted in 2004 its Victim of Rights Act that identifies a number of rights and restitution, which were accompanied by an evaluation by the General Accounting Office. This is important on its own but the National Crime Victim Law Institute has done much to train legal practitioners on how to advance rights.
I am proposing legislation and funding federally so that victims of crime in Canada have effective policies to prevent victimization and services and justice after the victimization. These must be more consistent across Canada and at least as good as those that exist in other comparable democracies.
So I am recommending that Canada adopt a Crime Prevention And Victim Justice Act. This would establish an Office for Crime Prevention and Victim Justice headed by a deputy minister and reporting to the Ministers of Justice and Public Safety. It must do this in collaboration with the provinces, territories and indigenous leaders.
The federal government must provide this office annually with the equivalent of 10% of federal expenditures on policing, courts and corrections. Halve of the funding will go to improving the prevention of victimization and halve to services and justice if victimization prevention failed.
The Office for Crime Prevention and Victim Justice would develop national standards and act to bring prevention and victim justice to those standards. The UK has legislated a code of practice. Each of the members of the EU and the UK have adopted comprehensive minimum standards. As the UN victim magna carta set out in 1985 guidelines are not enough, there needs to be training on those standards as well as evaluation as to how to ensure that the standards are met.
The way to prevention and victim justice today is a focus on measurable outcomes – what gets measured gets done. So there must also research and development, and data collection focused on results.
As with VOCA in the US, the federal government must be prepared to share costs so that provinces, territories and Indigenous leaders expand the planning and implementation of both effective victimization prevention and services, reparation and other components of victims justice. Ultimately smart prevention will save costs for policing, courts and corrections for all orders of government.
It is good to see to see the recent appointment of a qualified and energetic Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, but this is not enough. The Act would also legislate the role of the Federal Ombudsman, which would be strengthened to report to Parliament with an annual budget similar to the Correctional Investigator.
Canada has made some small steps to support victims, particularly when they are needed as witnesses. Canada must act now to be leader not a laggard internationally. It must stand in solidarity with victims of crime with techniques of modern goverrnance, adequate but affordable investments, and the evidence that the results are being achieved. It must foster consisent standards from coast to coast to coast that:
- use evidence and smart planning to reduce victimization by 50% in next few years
- foster services, reparation and rights for victims .
