Need some information on pardons? Want to know how to receive one? All the information you need is here!

Lesley Atkinson from pardons.ca recently made a proposal to write a guest article for my blog. I gladly accepted, as the pardon process is of great interest to me. A pardon from a criminal record can be very useful in opening up employment, housing and travel opportunities. Below, is the informative article written by Lesley Atkinson from www.pardons.ca.   

 What you can do about your criminal record

People with a criminal record often find it more difficult to get a good job or opportunity to volunteer, as well as more difficulty with child custody cases and immigration situations. A criminal record presents an almost permanent barrier to living a normal life, and hampers an individual’s attempt to rehabilitate back into law abiding society. This is why many people with criminal records apply for a government document called a pardon.

What is a pardon?

A pardon is granted by the National Parole Board of Canada, and being granted one means an individual’s criminal record will be removed from all federal databases and permanently sealed away (with a few exceptions). There are millions Canadians living with a criminal record today, and only a small number of them end up applying for a pardon. Of the more than 400 000 pardons granted by the National Parole Board since 1970, 96% of them are still in force. This evidence shows that the vast majority of individuals who get a pardon truly wish to live as law-abiding citizens.

Changes to the Criminal Records Act

On June 17, 2010, MP’s voted to pass a bill known as bill C-23A, known as the Limiting Pardons for Serious Crimes Act. Once this bill becomes law (this is expected to happen before July 5), individuals with criminal records for the following convictions will be forced to wait at least 10 years before they become eligible to apply for a pardon:

·         Manslaughter (for which at least 2 years in prison were served)

·         A Schedule 1 indictable or summary offence

·         Any indictable conviction for which at least 5 years were served in prison

·         A Service offence under the National Defence Act

Individuals with criminal records for these convictions will be forced to wait longer, and once they can apply, they must prove to the National Parole Board (the Board responsible for making decisions regarding pardons) that being granted the pardon would provide them with a measurable benefit, and would aid in their rehabilitation into law-abiding society.

The New Criminal Records Act and Rehabilitation

Once the new Criminal Records Act becomes law, many people with criminal records will find it much more difficult, and for some individuals, almost impossible to get a pardon. Criminal records will continue to create a barrier to living a normal life, and will in fact impede their efforts to rehabilitate into lawful society. Unable to live a normal life, and rejected by society because of the stigma of a criminal record, the new Criminal Records Act may in fact create an even more slippery slope for these individuals. The results of this Act becoming law could lead to an increased risk that people will commit more crimes in the future, leading to more time in court and jail. It is not in Canadians’ best interests to allow this to happen, both from a social and purely economical standpoint. When individuals commit crimes, there are almost always victims who suffer well after the crime has been committed and the sentence served. More crimes being committed means more victims being created, something we would all prefer to avoid. From the economical standpoint, putting these repeat offenders back in jail (for increased jail times no less) will create a larger burden on tax payers, who must now pay to support these individuals, instead of providing them with the tools (through social programs) to help themselves.

For more information on criminal records, pardons, and the new criminal records legislation, please visit Pardons.ca.

If you have a past criminal record and are interested in receiving a pardon, here is the contact information you need: 

Website: www.pardons.ca

Toll-Free Phone Number: 1-800-535-2429

Blog: http://blog.pardons.ca

Thanks again to Lesley Atkinson for this guest article! If anybody else involved in criminal justice agencies or organizations wishes to write a guest article for my blog, please direct your inquiries to brittanymaria423@aol.com 

 

The problem with pardon reform legislation

The problem of pardon legislation

On May 11, Vic Toews introduced new legislation in bill C-23, The Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act. There was a huge flurry of debate over this legislation, but that died down soon afterwards and has been almost completely forgotten by the general public. Yet it is important that the public carry on the debates, as the bill is being prepared for a second reading as I type. As a refresher, here are the main points of the pardon legislation changes:

· The term ‘pardon’ would be changed to ‘record suspension’

· Eligibility time periods to apply for a pardon/record suspension would be increased from the current 3-5 to 5-10 years

· Individuals with more than 3 indictable offences, and individuals convicted of certain sexual offences against minors would never be eligible to apply for a pardon/record suspension

· The National Parole Board (NPB) would be given greater power to look into the details behind each conviction when deciding whether to order or refuse to order a record suspension

A recent poll conducted by Angus Reid found that 63% of respondents wanted their MP’s to vote in favour of the bill. Yet this bill could be potentially hazardous for the overall health of our country. It’s common knowledge that people with criminal records often experience more trouble when trying to get a job, travel, volunteer, and even entering into certain education streams. A criminal record creates a barrier that prevents these individuals from moving on with their lives and becoming law abiding citizens.

This is where our government’s main focus should be;

a) looking at how to prevent the crimes from occurring in the first place by creating more funding for community and social programs, and

b) providing more resources and assistance to those with a criminal record. People with a criminal record are limited in many of what the rest of Canadians consider basic choices, and because of this, many are driven back to crime.

It is going to cost taxpayers more in the long term to support these individuals while they are in jail. Additionally, according to statistics released by the NPB, over 96% of individuals who get a pardon do no reoffend. This shows that the vast majority of people who get pardons go on to live as law abiding citizens. Is it logical that we should make it more difficult for these people to move past their criminal record?

This article was contributed by www.pardons.ca.

Begging off pardon reform? Kevin Engstrom, do you have any brain cells?!

Begging off pardon reform

We’re going to have to get a smaller violin to play for John Hutton.

The head of the local chapter of the John Howard Society, the country’s top hug-a-thug group, had a presser the other day to bemoan the federal government’s plan to overhaul the country’s pardon system so sickos like Graham James can’t ever receive one.

Hutton said all those people who think this is a good idea are greatly mistaken, and called on opposition parties to unite and vote down the legislation.

To recap, the Harper government’s bill would replace the word “pardon” with “record suspension”, extend the waiting period for ex-cons to apply, and deny anyone convicted of more than three indictable offences or specific types of sex offence.

Oh, and also to put the onus on the applicant to show the record suspension is necessary to lead a crime-free life.

All of this sounds pretty reasonable. In fact, it’s kind of shocking these rules weren’t already in place, no?

But Hutton believes changing the lax legislation would somehow make our communities less safe.

Seems these hard-done-by ex-cons would return to a life of crime if they have to suffer with the stigma of their crimes for an extra few years before getting their record suspension.

“Someone has to point out that it does not serve public safety to make it harder for people to reintegrate after a prison sentence,” said Hutton, flanked by like-minded aboriginal and anti-poverty leaders also opposed to the changes.

Oh, the horror of it all.

Hutton did a pretty good job fearmongering and talking down to Canadians who he obviously feels aren’t as enlightened as he is on the topic.

What he failed to do, though, is mention the rights of victims and their families.

I suppose nobody should be terribly surprised by this, given the plight of criminals receives more consideration in this country than that of victims. But it’s definitely disappointing.

The point of the legislation, at least from my vantage point, was to take a small step towards improving the balance between the rights of criminals and victims. If that makes it a little harder for ex-cons to move on with their life, then, quite frankly, boo-frickin’-hoo.

Instead, Hutton wants Canadians to believe we’re somehow safer with folks like pedophile Graham James going relatively undetected on the streets than incorporating a system that dares to toughen up pardon legislation.

Good luck with selling that piece of logic, John. You’re going to need it.

If you eliminate pardons for those convicted of certain offences or more than 3 indictable offences, where is the incentive to lead a crime-free life? A record severely limits employment and housing opportunities, and with unemployment comes the increased chance of one re-offending. The purpose of the pardon is the facilitate rehabilitation and successful reintegration, which is extremely important. This should always be our main focus. The Conservatives are basing this pardon reform policy on ONE sensational case (that of Graham James) and it is purely an emotional response to the public's outrage. This policy is not evidence-based, rational, reasonable or logical as the stats show that 97% of those granted pardons are successful in leading crime-free lives and only 3% have re-offended since 1970! To me, that seems pretty successful... so there is no need for change!  A pardon is an incentive to remain crime free in the community. Why should we take that away from individuals?

John Hutton is absolutely correct. These reforms do not serve the public safety by making it harder for an individual to reintegrate into society after serving their prison sentence. Also, these people have already served their sentences, and society should NOT be further depriving and punishing them.

The author Kevin Engstrom, clearly has no knowledge about criminal justice issues. Maybe he should do some research on the topic and consider for a second, that the John Howard Society may be correct! They have more knowledge that you do on the subject and at least have done their research and know the evidence! The pardon system is already successful so why do we need to change it? And Kevin also repeatedly refers to ONE sensational case, that of Graham James. That is one case in about 400,000 Kevin. Again, you need to do some research. Apparently, Kevin cares little about public safety. How sad.   

Conservatives' pardon bill could incite more crime and less safe communities!

Feds' pardon bill could incite more crime -- John Howard Society

Yellowknife, N.W.T. - The Conservative government wants to make it more difficult for people to receive pardons from past criminal offences.

According to some advocacy groups, the new bill in front of the House of Commons could be detrimental for people trying to get a new lease on life. Here in Yellowknife, the executive director of the John Howard Society, Lydia Bardak, says if the bill is passed, it could be devastating to some people's careers."Somebody for example, say they're in their 40s, and 20-25 years ago they had an impaired driving charge or simple possession of marijuana charge," she says, "now if they haven't had their pardon, that criminal record from way back for something that hasn't reoccurred in their life is holding them back from obtaining a job or maybe being promoted or going into other kinds of work."Bardak says the current pardon system has a 96 per cent success rate, so the Feds shouldn't tamper with it."The fear is if you're putting barriers for employment in front of people, then you are setting up a situation where you're putting them more at risk of re-committing crimes, and more importantly, you're putting that means you're putting the community at risk of being victimized."Bardak says, the legislation could potentially drive people away from the Northwest Territories because it would make it more difficult for some to work at the diamond mines. Bardak says pardons are incentives for people to move toward a crime-free life. The Conservatives are trying to pass the legislation after former hockey coach Graham James, convicted of sexually assaulting two of his players, was pardoned this spring.

Tories propose tighter pardon rules

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews unveiled sweeping changes Tuesday that he said are meant to tighten up Canada's system of criminal pardons.

Toews said the proposed changes would eliminate pardons and replace them with more narrowly defined criminal record suspensions.

The push for changes to the pardon system stemmed from the case of Graham James, who pleaded guilty in 1997 to sexual assault. Sheldon Kennedy, who went on to play in the NHL, and a second unnamed player had come forward with accounts of the sexual abuse they suffered when James coached their Western Hockey League teams from 1984 to 1995.

"As all of you are aware, the pardon of convicted sex offender Graham James was deeply offensive to Canadians, to victims and to our government," Toews said during a news conference in Ottawa. "It demonstrated the need to take action to prevent such an outrage from happening again and to ensure our system of justice is not brought into disrepute."

Toews said his reform legislation would make it impossible for those convicted of sex offences against minors to have their criminal records suspended, except in a case where the applicant can demonstrate he or she was “close in age,” and that the offence did not involve a position of trust or authority, bodily harm or threat of violence or intimidation.

The changes would also prevent those convicted of more than three indictable offences from getting a record suspension.

Toews said the period of ineligibility for a record suspension would increase, from the current three years to five years for summary conviction offences and from five years up to 10 years for indictable offences.

'It doesn't erase what they've done'

The National Parole Board granted James a pardon in 2007 after he completed a 3½-year prison sentence. But the news only came to light in April after a previously unknown accuser contacted Winnipeg police.

The National Parole Board said in an explanation issued April 5 that it could not refuse a pardon based on the nature of a crime.

Craig Jones, the executive director of the John Howard Society, said the legislation to revamp the pardon system was a "rush to judgment."

He said there may be a case for a review of pardons and parole, but it should by done slowly and carefully, by panels of experts — not by what he calls "short-term-oriented, hair-on-fire opportunists."

Kennedy, however, in attendance at the announcement, applauded the proposed changes.

"This has been put together, yes, quickly, but with a lot of thought, and I think that it's going to be very beneficial to the organizations and the people that are going to be looking for background checks and so forth moving forward," he said.

"I think it just holds people accountable for what they've done and it doesn't erase what they've done."

In January of this year, Theoren Fleury, Kennedy's former WHL teammate who went on to have a stellar NHL career with the Calgary Flames and other teams, filed a police complaint against James.

Fleury alleged in his autobiography, Playing With Fire, that James repeatedly sexually abused him when he was a young player in the 1980s.

Winnipeg police have said they were investigating Fleury's complaint.

Pardon reforms missing the point

Following is the viewpoint of Des Rosiers, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and Zwibel, its program director for public safety.

The government has recently introduced into the House of Commons Bill C-23, which is entitled Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act.

It represents a significant reform of the pardon system, and its passage no doubt would demonstrate that quick responses driven by particular cases may not be the best way to enact social policy.

Much of the public outcry over the Graham James case arose out of a misunderstanding about the meaning of a pardon. Borrowing from American films and television, many Canadians mistakenly assumed that a pardon meant that a person's criminal record ceased to exist and that he was, for all intents and purposes, "forgiven" for his crimes.

In reality, the Canadian pardon system never did work that way. An offender who is granted a pardon will have the records of his or her convictions separated from other criminal records.

This record would not be disclosed in an ordinary criminal record check. However, the law does seek to ensure that persons convicted of sexual offences against children, for example, are not shielded by the pardon if they choose to apply for a job or volunteer opportunity where they would be put in close contact with the "vulnerable sector," including children and those with development disabilities.

Thus, James's record would be disclosed if, for example, he wanted to coach junior hockey in Canada again. A pardoned conviction does not cease to exist and is not deleted. In addition, if the offender is convicted of another crime, the pardon ceases to have any effect.

The government has recognized that the "pardon" label is misleading, and Bill C-23 proposes to rename this as a "record suspension." This change is helpful. However, it's unfortunate that many of the other reforms proposed in Bill C-23 will do little to enhance public safety and may, in fact, undermine it.

The proposed reforms would narrow the list of those who are eligible for a pardon and make those eligible wait longer before they even can apply -- up to 10 years for many offences. Overall, the proposed reforms ignore the National Parole Board's evidence that the pardon system, as it currently stands, is working. Since 1970, the vast majority of pardoned offenders (96 per cent) have not re-offended.

The reforms also ignore the reality that a pardon can help to pave the way for convicted offenders to reintegrate into society after serving out their sentences and showing a commitment to abide by the law thereafter. Granting a pardon actually serves to further goals of public safety by creating incentives for offenders to stay on the right side of the law and allowing them the opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to society.

There is no evidence that making it more difficult to get a pardon will make society safer. Indeed there is evidence to the contrary. The proposed reforms will simply heap another dose of punishment on offenders who have served out their sentences, paid their debts to society, and abide by the law. They will hinder society's goals of reintegration.

If we take rehabilitation seriously, we should not make it more difficult to obtain one of the more valuable tools towards that goal. Unfortunately, the government's knee-jerk reaction to the Graham James pardon does just that.

The pros and cons of pardon reforms

Legislation was introduced last week to change the current criminal pardon legislation, and I have some mixed feelings on the proposed changes.

I do agree with changing the name from a pardon to a record suspension, since a pardon does imply forgiveness of a crime, speaking strictly language-wise. I don't think the government should have the ability to "forgive" someone of a crime, which should be left to the individuals involved. A record suspension is an apt term for what actually happens. When someone gets a pardon the criminal record doesn't simply disappear, it is set aside and can be rescinded if the perpetrator commits another crime.

It also makes sense to give the pardon board the ability to consider each offense individually, since right now their hands are mostly tied. With the proposed changes the pardon board can consider the nature and impact of the crime. This is more in line with one of the sentencing principles of the Canadian justice system, which is that the sentence cannot undermine the public's faith in the justice system. Since the courts have to hold to that in sentencing I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the same standard applied to pardons.

What I have an issue with is proposed changes to the period of time before someone can get a pardon. The purpose of a pardon is that it removes barriers such as travel and employment for someone who has served their time and lived the specified amount of time without committing another offense. The current waiting periods are three years for less serious offenses and five years for more serious offenses.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews wants to increase the amount of time to five years for less serious offenses and 10 years for more serious offenses. To me this seems like a decision made purely for politicking and not with any credible reason behind it. Is there research showing that people with a pardon after, say five years, commit more crimes in the subsequent five years? Since only three per cent of pardons given since the 1970s have been rescinded because of a later crime I have serious doubts about that. A pardon is supposed to let someone who made a mistake better re-integrate themselves into society and become productive citizens. This delays that and if we don't want them to be able to move forward then why ever let them out in the first place? Why not just keep everyone in jail for the rest of their lives if they commit a crime?

This has all come about because of the sensationalistic case of Graham James, the former minor hockey coach who abused young players, most famously NHLer Sheldon Kennedy and allegedly Theo Fleury. James was granted a pardon and that has caused an apparent uproar. Prime Minister Harper exasperated the situation by pointing out that Karla Holomka will be eligible for a pardon this year. Both of these cases are exceptions rather than the norm in Canada, and citing them as reasons doesn't give an accurate picture of the pardon system or its effectiveness.

Because of the two very public and inflammatory nature of the cases mentioned above the government has brought in these proposed changes. Rather quickly too. I guess they think it makes them look tough on crime and able to act quickly. Acting quickly is not always the best route, especially in regards to binding legislation. Personally, I think actually looking into the stats and deciding if there's a need for all of the changes and if they will have a positive impact is better than throwing together some legislation quickly that panders to the voters. Being a lapdog for public opinion is not a good way to make policy or run a country. 

Harsher sentences do nothing to reduce, prevent or deter crime. Longer sentences increase the likelihood of re-offending due to the negative prison environment, influences and subculture and decrease the likelihood of successful reintegration due to no rehabilitation, little assistance when released, they become dependent and institutionalized. This is not in society's best interests. We need to foster rehabilitation and reintegration. A pardon is an incentive to live a crime free life. Criminal records severely limit employment and housing opportunities and with unemployment, comes the increased chance that one will resort back to criminal activities to earn funds. This is also not in society's best interests as it does not make communities safer. Aboriginals are disproportionately represented in Canada's prisons and therefore, this legislation will further marginalize this already socially disadvantaged group. This bill will make it much harder for aboriginals to turn their lives around. We need to help people who have committed criminal offences in the past, to successfully reintegrate into society, so they can become productive and law abiding citizens once again. 

Granting a pardon does not mean the crime committed is "forgiven." It simply acknowledges that people can and do change and that everybody deserves a second chance to turn their lives around and to improve themselves. Pardons comes with restrictions and are revoked if a person re-offends. They also do not erase a criminal record, and it can still be accessed, just not as easily. We need to help past offenders in rehabilitation and in moving forward in their lives. Nothing here is forgiven. Pardons merely allow a criminal record to be shelved to allow the person to prove themselves worthy in society. 

I believe in equality of opportunity for everybody, regardless of criminal past. Reforming the pardon system, does not give everybody equality of opportunity as denying pardons to sex offenders and other serious offenders, severely limits their employment and housing and travel opportunities. They have served their time in prison already and should not be further deprived and punished by society, and by having the stigma of a criminal past and record. People deserve second chances. Depriving and punishing those innocent people who have past criminal records, is "cruel and unusual punishment" as far as I am concerned. I advocate for human rights and equality and fairness and reforming the pardon system which is already successful, undermines these things. Every Canadian citizen deserves to have their basic human rights upheld and respected. 

There are significant restrictions associated with a pardon. The intent is to provide incentive to lead a productive life. The new changes may restrict some individuals to a life of institutional care by preventing meaningful employment. Rash and ill-conceived. This is the hallmark of the Conservative government.

What most people don't understand is that it's pretty much the same type of people that end up with a criminal record.

By a large margin, it's our country's poor people that end up on the wrong end of the legal system.

So Conservatives will use an evil example here and there to outrage their base, but the reality is that, at the end of the day, the people who will suffer as always from these "well intentioned" laws will be poor people. Victims will go on being victims and all of this banter will not reduce crime one iota. This is just more cruel and unusual punishment. More of the same from the Harper conservatives.

By the way folks: crime rates have been falling in Canada for at least a decade. When are we going to recognize that our system works relatively well as it is? Shouldn't we be doing more of the successful Liberal policies that have brought us here?

Honestly people. Let's admit that people can change (and yes, even sex offenders). A criminal record makes it extremely difficult for people to find work, eventually making them poor and homeless. What do you think happens then? When they don't have any legit options, crime is the only thing that pays the bills.

People can change. Sex offenders can only change to a certain degree, ie impulse control, awareness of triggers (alcohol, drugs, various states of mind like depression), and cognitive realization of impact on victims etc.
Most will tell you the urge never leaves....they rely on external controls and curtailing exposure to risk factors and triggers. So, no, sex offenders cannot really change at a base levels.

If this government were serious about reducing crime (which is already falling), it would not be cutting programs to divert youth from gangs and closing prison farms

We are more likely to have a safe society if we can find ways to integrate convicts. It may be a popular political move to incite anger against criminals, but if we really want to address the problem we need to look at root causes.

"As all of you are aware, the pardon of convicted sex offender Graham James was deeply offensive to Canadians, to victims and to our government,"

That sums it up right there... no evidence... no pragmatic or practical reasons... nothing except "We were offended"?

Laws are not some toy! They are not supposed to be about us FEELING better. We're not supposed to just rewrite laws because we are "offended" for crying out loud! What a WASTE of time! Not to mention how freaking dangerous!

What happens next when something else... like veils... like porn.. .like opposition to conservative opinion *offends* us. Do we outlaw those too? Laws cannot be a matter of taste! You must have some REAL reason to make them or to change them. Hurt feelings are not enough.

This is crazy! When we have so much else to do. When the RCMP just admitted they don't have the manpower... not even half the manpower... to even *start* to go after crooks who have hurt thousands of people through fraud. Here we are here... wasting time trying to RE-PUNISH a tiny handful of people we ALREADY caught and who have ALREADY been convicted and have ALREADY served their ENTIRE SENTENCE!

What the heck are we doing?!?!?!

Some facts that are not being put out there by the Conservatives in their propaganda about Pardons

1. A pardon does not erase the fact that a person was convicted of an offence
2. A pardon does not guarantee entry or visa privileges to another country.
3. A sentence may have included a driving or firearms prohibition order. A pardon will not cancel these prohibition orders
4. The CRA lists certain sexual offences. If a person was pardoned for such offences, his/her record will be kept separate and apart, but his/her name will be flagged in the CPIC computer system

4 being the most important, even if a sex offender applies for a job to work with children, the record is still available to the employer and comes up in a regular search process... If the sex offenders applies for a warehouse job then it does not as he won't be working with kids..

Another knee-jerk reaction from a bunch of jerks who can see no further than pandering to the emotionalism surrounding some criminal activities.
This legislation is next to meaningless. It will protect nobody who isn't already protected.
A pardon does not, and never did, wipe out a criminal record. For certain offences (i.e. sexual ones) the record is still available for certain kinds of searches.
All this will do is to make it more difficult for an offender to find a meaningful job in an area where their past is irrelevant.
More smoke & mirrors from the the cons for the sole purpose of stirring up emotions.

The people who want the pardon system abolished are completely uninformed and ignorant of its ramifications upon our justice system. Pardons serve as a way to deter criminals from ever committing again by rehabilitating them into society as lawful, taxpaying citizens! This has been proven to work. This conservative attitude towards US style "tough justice" just does not work!!! Please look at the US's crime rates per capital and their budgets spent per inmates and their recidivism (re-incarceration)... proof that tough justice just doesnt cut it.

Do something about crime prevention and rehabilitation. This means that lots of folks will have trouble finding work for more than 10 years and probably much longer; will be prone to more crime; and very likely will be living on social assistance for much of their life.

"The tightening up of pardons is fine, especially for violent offenders. The problem I see with what they're proposing is with regards to the 3 indictable offenses.

I was a troublemaker when I was younger and managed to rack up dozens of offenses (all property offenses, yet mostly tried as indictable offenses) over a period of about 10 years. Now, more than 20 years after the fact, and after having changed my life and attitude around (married, had children, bought a home, obtained my GED, etc.) I recently applied for and received a pardon. Under the proposed changes however, it sounds like this wouldn't have happened.

Should people continue to pay the price for foolish mistakes made as teenagers/young adults for the rest of their lives, even AFTER already serving sentences for those offenses??? As is already the case, these records are NOT expunged when a "pardon" is granted...they are only held separately from the accessible records through CPIC and similar searches. If another offense is committed, these records are immediately reintroduced into the system AND considered at trial as though a pardon had never been granted.

Let's eliminate the vigilante mob mentality and force the parole board to look at individual cases more closely, rather than bringing in blanket legislation making it harder for even truly changed individuals to erase a part of their history they wish to step away from to make a better life not only for themselves but in many cases for others such as their spouse and children. I'm NOT ashamed of my past, but it's nice to know that I DON'T have to explain it to every employer who asks!!!"

'This is downright evil. Restricting the rights of offenders does nothing but allow victims to extend their revenge longer. It doesn't help offenders change their lives and I can't see how it could possibly protect other people. If someone is determined to re-offend (and they most likely will be if they can't heal and re-integrate into society), then it doesn't matter whether they have a record or not.'

John Howard Society opposes proposed pardon changes!

Manitoba groups oppose pardon changes

The Manitoba chapter of a Canadian prisoners' rights organization is attacking a proposed tightening of laws surrounding criminal pardons.

 

The John Howard Society held a press conference in Winnipeg Thursday to condemn sweeping changes to the pardon system proposed by the federal government.

Introduced in Parliament in May, Bill C-23 would eliminate pardons and replace them with more narrowly defined criminal record suspensions.

The most notable change the government is seeking is hiking the amount of time a criminal must wait before being able to apply for a pardon.

People who commit indictable — or serious — crimes would have to wait 10 years before being eligible, up from the current five years.

As well, offenders who have more than three convictions for serious crimes would be denied record suspensions, and some sex offenders would never be eligible.

But Manitoba's executive director of the prisoners' society said Thursday the changes would make society less safe by hampering an offender's ability to return to society.

'Someone has to point out that it does not serve public safety to make it harder for people to reintegrate after a prison sentence.'—John Hutton

"Someone has to point out that it does not serve public safety to make it harder for people to reintegrate after a prison sentence," said John Hutton.

"It's costly, because they will have to live on public assistance, and its counterproductive, because we should want them to find a job and go straight," he said.

96 per cent success

Hutton offered statistics from the National Parole Board showing out of 400,000 pardons granted in the last 40 years, only 4,000 have been revoked after an offender committed another crime.

"In other words, the current system enjoys a 96 per cent success rate," a statement from the society said. "That's an A-plus by any standard — why is any change needed at all?," the statement reads.

The recent push for changes to the pardon system stemmed from public outrage over the case of Graham James, who pleaded guilty in 1997 to sexual assault.

Sheldon Kennedy, who went on to play in the NHL, and a second unnamed player had come forward with accounts of the sexual abuse they suffered when James coached their Western Hockey League teams from 1984 to 1995.

The parole board granted James a pardon in 2007 after he completed a 3½-year prison sentence — but the news only came to light in April after a previously unknown accuser contacted Winnipeg police.

The National Parole Board said in an explanation issued April 5 that it could not refuse a pardon based on the nature of a crime.

Aboriginal group wants bill quashed

Hutton was flanked at an afternoon news conference by representatives of eight other social-welfare agencies opposed to the changes, including the Mennonite Central Committee and Manitoba's Southern Chiefs organization.

The SCO's director of justice, Nahanni Fontaine said the changes would only further marginalize aboriginal criminals already disproportionately represented in prisons.

"Aboriginal citizens who have completed their programs and sentence will have to bear the stigma of a criminal past twice as long under the new rules, and in many cases permanently," Fontaine said.

I completely agree with the John Howard Society. Limiting pardons even further and restricting some from even being granted one, decreases the likelihood of successful reintegration for past offenders. Pardons severely limit employment opportunities, housing and travel opportunities. Unemployment can lead to further re-offending, and the ex-offender is more likely to resort back to criminal activity to earn money. We as a society need to facilitate and foster rehabilitation and successful reintegration and by limiting it, we take the risk of society becoming less safe. Making it more difficult for someone to successfully reintegrate into society, by obtaining employment, etc. is not in society's best interests. 97% of those granted pardons since 1970 have been successful in leading crime free lives, so why is change needed? This is drive-by policy making on the Conservatives' part. They want to make changes to the whole pardon system just because of ONE exceptional and rare case (that of Graham James). This is not reasonable, rational or logical. These changes would also further marginalize aboriginal criminals, who are already disproportionately represented in prisons. These pardon changes are not needed, in any way. 

Once people have served their prison sentence, they should be allowed to move on with their lives and become productive, law abiding citizens once again. Changes to the pardon system would only make reintegration even more difficult. If these people have completed their prison sentences, we should not further deprive and punish them, by denying them the right to be pardoned. We need to give people the chance to turn their lives around, improve themselves and make better choices. What happened to that? There is no reason why someone with a criminal record of any sort, should be labeled with their past offences for the remainder of their lives. We cannot assume that every person convicted of a criminal offence is dangerous to society for the rest of their lives! Many criminals made one poor choice or mistake and they should not have to live with that record for a longer period of time, before being allowed to have a pardon. Further labeling somebody as a criminal simply creates a society in which we perpetuate the cycle of crime. Has anybody ever heard of the labelling theory? We need to give past criminals, second chances at succeeding at life. People convicted of all sorts of crimes go on to live productive, non-criminal lives. Pardons acknowledge that people can and do change. Once they have done their time, they should not be denied opportunities for a better life. 

The proposed legislation is reactionary and unfair. We should not punish and deprive now innocent people, for the rest of their lives for a crime which they have already served their sentence.

The majority of people who are pardoned, do NOT re-offend! (97%). To me, this demonstrates that they have moved beyond their past criminal lifestyle and have become productive, law abiding citizens. Why should we make it harder for these people to reintegrate into society and to improve their lives? Why do we want to further deprive and punish them? What is the purpose? Knee-jerk response by the government to one sensational case, will not bring society to a better place. 

We should be looking at preventing crimes from happening in the first place, by providing employment assistance, reducing poverty, addictions, unemployment and helping those socially disadvantaged and marginalized populations through social programming. This would stop people from being driven towards crime due to addictions, poverty, unemployment, negative peer influences, etc. We also need to provide a supportive framework for those with a criminal record to move beyond their criminal past and become law abiding members of society. The pardon system is an integral part of an individual's successful reintegration into the law abiding society. We should not further limit, deprive and punish those who have a criminal record from their past. We need to facilitate reintegration and rehabilitation by giving these individuals second chances to improve their lives and become productive citizens once again. Unemployment caused by a criminal record, increases the chances of one returning to a criminal lifestyle to obtain funds and decreases the likelihood of successful reintegration. That is not in society's best interests. 


Comments that amount to "you break the law you pay for life" are laughable. I think the vast majority of adult Canadians, including many who think they are holier than thou, could easily find themselves with a criminal record if there were the resources to detect and catch everyone who breaks a law. Have you declared every penny you owe in income tax? Have you paid every tax you owe or have you sometimes paid cash for jobs or products in order to avoid taxes? Do you have a weapon or ammunition that is in any way in contravention of the law? Or, are you one of those who thinks that the law (e.g., gun registry) is so flawed that it is okay to break it? Have you ever hit anyone? Have you ever helped yourself to a little something (e.g., a few grapes for example) in the grocery store?

I'm sure people get my point.

I thought we lived in a country that allowed people to pay their debt to society and then move on with their life. What happened to giving people a chance to turn their life around and make better choices? We give that much to addicts and alcoholics, and I see no reason why someone with a criminal record of any sort should be labeled with his/her past offences for the remainder of their life. We cannot assume that every person convicted of a criminal offence is a menace to society for all time. Relegating someone to that corner simply creates a society in which we perpetuate the cycle of crime. Do we assume that every person convicted of drunk driving cannot ever be trusted behind the wheel ever again? No, we don't. People get their licences back all the time and never re-offend. There are people convicted of all sorts of crimes that go on to live productive, non-criminal lives. Once they've done their time, they don't owe the world their submission and they should not be denied opportunities for a better life. The proposed legislation is reactionary and unfair. We should not go on punishing people for the rest of their lives for a crime for which they have already served their sentence, and that seems to be what many posters on this board are suggesting.

The majority of people who get a pardon DO NOT REOFFEND (96%) .This to me shows that they are pretty happy to move beyond their criminal past and become law abiding citizens. Why should we make it even harder for these people to improve their lives? This is just another one of Harpers knee-jerk reactions, just look at how he treated helena guergis, this bill is only one of many attempts by the conservatives to hurt the people who are already down and out. But should we really be surprised? We all know the conservatives are for private healthcare, big business and big money. For more detailed info on record suspension, and to see how I can pick apart just about EVERY single change harper and toews are proposing, check out my blog at www.recordsuspensions.org.

 

I agree with the John Howard Society on many points: firstly we should be looking at preventing the crimes from happening in the first place. More social programs, employment assistance, etc would stop a lot of people from being driven to crime becuase of drugs, poverty, and other similar factors. Secondly, we need to provide a supportive framework for those with a criminal record to move past their criminal past, and become law abiding members of society. The pardon system is an integral part of an individuals successful rehabilitation into law abiding society. For more info on pardons, what they are, how to get one, etc etc, please visit my blog at www.blog.pardons.ca

 

Its amazing how people blare out percieved stats with actual no knowledge of reality.

"The majority of parolees "Reoffend" once they're back in society and that's why Bill C-23 is needed."

That is out right incorrect. Many youth offenders reoffend that is true. But the vast majority of parolees do not reoffend. In fact Canada has one of the lowest redivism rates in the world.

And when we look at the rates it dependent on the type of crime Federal or Provincial instituion. Ful parole day parole, technical violation, non technical or new crime.

The over all number is 37.1% of those released on parol are brought back in, with the vast majority of that for technical violations of there parol. With less then 13% being brought back in during parole for a new crime.

And 95% of offenders released who have done there entire sentence + parole, never re-enter the system.

So how is that *Majority*

Also our justise system is about rehabilitation. So once you have done your time paid your due to society. Why then would we wish to punish them a further 10 years preventing there travel or ability to work?


SO yes its nice to say don't do a crime, and thats not the issue. The issue is we believe in bringing people back into society. And for the most part it works. So once you pay your debit to society, show you are reformed, show you are a productive member of society. Why then continue to make them pay?

 

the majority of criminals do not re-offend. The majority of crime is committed by people who are career criminals but the majority of people convicted of a crime in this country never re-offend. Most are young men who have made a terrible mistake and are profoundly changed by the system to the point where they do it fact turn their lives around completely and become fully productive members of society. To deny anyone this opportunity for ten years serves no public interest whatsoever besides appealing to the kind of anti-social bigots who regular this site and come out in full force whenever a crime story is reported.

 

This is an emotional subject for some of the Victim's Families but we can't let our Government pick and choose who gets a pardon and who doesn't. I too agree a person's mistakes in the past should not be carried around forever with them. I have heard that although a person may get a pardon, the record still shows up... on CPIC and other international criminal checks. True?

yes this is true. Sex offenders records are always available with a police check when the job requires working with disadvantaged groups such as children, the elderly, and the disabled. all a pardon means is that people can claim that they have no record and can apply for most jobs without their record surfacing.

Facebook Group: Everyone deserves the right to earn a pardon

Recent news outlets have been debating the new pardon law the conservatives are trying to pass. The new law would make serious criminal offenders wait 10 years (as oppose to the current 5) before being eligible to receive a pardon. Despite what many believe pardons are not given out like candy. during those 5 years a criminal must prove that they have successfully integrated back into society. I believe everyone deserves the right to live a life beyond the mistakes they have made in the past. If you agree that people can change then please support this group and stop the conservatives from making another gross injustice on our society.

Homolka's pardon and ongoing investigation into Graham James

No pardon for Homolka: victim's mom

ST. CATHARINES - A pardon for Karla Homolka's crimes would suggest the schoolgirl killer has been forgiven and nothing could be further from the truth, said the mother of one of Homolka's victims.

Donna French, mother of Kristen French who was murdered in 1992, said she supports proposed changes that would eliminate the possibility of pardons for serious crimes, such as Homolka's.

French joined St. Catharines Conservative MP Rick Dykstra on Saturday in his call for quick passage of a bill to make changes to the Criminal Records Act, introduced Tuesday in the House of Commons by Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.

"From a victim's perspective, a pardon means you are forgiven for doing this horrific crime," French said, "and that is totally inappropriate and totally unjust."

French said she will never forgive Homolka and her then-husband, Paul Bernardo, for the abduction, rape and murder of her 15-year-old daughter, and doesn't think society should either.

"It's very offensive," she said. "A pardon implies that there is forgiveness there. They have shown no remorse whatsoever, so how can you forgive?"

French said some people seeking pardons may have genuinely become good citizens, but the term "pardon" should not apply to Homolka's crimes.

Dykstra said he hopes the bill can be debated and passed before this session of Parliament ends June 21, which would then make Homolka ineligible for a pardon.

Dykstra said Homolka's eligibility to apply for a pardon - coming five years after her July 2005 release from prison in Quebec - is approaching soon.

French said she was surprised five years had passed so quickly. She was alerted to the possibility of a pardon for Homolka when the issue of nearly automatic pardons came to public attention in April, with the news of a 2007 pardon for convicted sex offender and former junior hockey coach Graham James.

"I called Rick (Dykstra) when it hit the news and he said he was working on it and would keep me informed," French said.

Dykstra said the minority Conservative government needs the support of other political parties in the House in order for the legislation to pass.

He made a personal plea to Welland NDP MP Malcolm Allen (whose riding includes parts of south St. Catharines) and other MPs "to show some leadership to help this move along as quickly as possible."

He said the six weeks before Parliament ends is a tight timeline, but he is choosing to remain optimistic.

If it's not passed before the summer recess, Dykstra said the issue would be raised again in the fall, but by then Homolka will have been eligible to apply.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said 99% of pardons that get to the adjudication stage are granted.

Dykstra said he's had "overwhelming support" from constituents for the proposed changes.

"I am hearing by e-mail, in phone calls, in direct discussions with people," he said.

He said Friday's historic multi-party agreement on documents pertaining to Afghan detainees shows co-operation in the House of Commons is possible.

Dykstra said if the changes are passed, the word "pardon" would be eliminated and replaced with the words "record suspension."

People convicted of sexual offences against minors or those convicted of more than three offences would never be eligible for a record suspension, he said.

The eligibility period for applying for a record suspension would be increased to 10 years for someone convicted of an indictable offence, and the onus would be on the applicant to prove that a record suspension would help sustain his or her rehabilitation as a law-abiding citizen.

The National Parole Board would also be required to report annually on the number of applications and the number of suspensions granted.

Liberal MP Mark Holland, his party's public safety critic, has objected to the Conservative party's haste.

He said his party supports reforms to the pardon system, but bullying through legislation in a matter of weeks is imprudent.

He has said the changes being proposed warrant study by a parliamentary committee to avoid making mistakes.

Investigation into Graham James ongoing

Winnipeg police have confirmed something that was widely known — detectives are investigating a sexual assault allegation against Graham James, a pardoned sex offender and former junior hockey coach.

On Thursday, police publicly acknowledged the focus of the investigation for the first time.

This comes after a report on CBC’s The National about James’ current whereabouts, which were a mystery for some time.

The report revealed James, 58, is working and living in Guadalajara, Mexico.

Previously, police confirmed detectives in the sex crimes unit are investigating a complaint made by former NHLer Theoren Fleury but wouldn’t reveal the name of the accused.

The person’s identity wasn’t a mystery because Fleury identified James as his alleged abuser in his autobiography last fall.

James has not been charged. The investigation is ongoing.

Four of James’ former players, including Fleury, have detailed new allegations against their old coach, according to a QMI Agency report.

“We are aware of police investigations being conducted in other jurisdictions and we are actively working to co-ordinate investigative efforts,” the city’s police service said in a brief statement.

Evan Roitenberg, James’ lawyer, said his client will co-operate with police.

“Once the police have concluded their investigation or wish to speak to Mr. James, I’m sure they will be in touch with me,” Roitenberg said.

James was sentenced to 3 ½ years in prison for repeated sexual assaults against former NHL player Sheldon Kennedy and a second man, whose identity is protected by the courts, while he was their junior hockey coach.

Earlier this year, it was revealed James obtained a pardon from the National Parole Board, sparking public outrage and proposed changes to Canada’s pardon system.