Man allegedly re-offended after receiving little assistance and support on statutory release

Violent con's breaches ignored

Federal prison officials twice allowed a violent criminal to breach his statutory release without consequence -- including just days before he allegedly participated in the violent home invasion and killing of a Winnipeg man.

Parole documents obtained this week by the Free Press show serious concerns about James Henry's ability to function in the community and obey conditions of his release were overlooked, allowing him to remain on the streets until after he was implicated in the April 18 slaying.

Henry, 38, is charged with manslaughter and conspiracy to commit robbery for his alleged role in the death of Ricky Lathlin. The 34-year-old died after an early-morning stabbing on Gilbert Avenue. Police announced Wednesday a total of five men are accused in the homicide, which began with a plot to steal from Lathlin.

Roland Edward Klyne, 26, and Jonathon Etienne Boyer, 25, are charged with second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit robbery, while Terry Junior Davis, 31, and Bradley Campbell, 31, are charged with manslaughter and conspiracy to commit robbery. Police are still searching for Campbell and have issued a Canada-wide warrant.

None of the allegations has been proven and the accused are presumed innocent.

Henry has a lengthy criminal history that led to him receiving just over 22 years in prison in 1991, according to parole documents. His offences included 14 counts of armed robbery, breaking and entering, possession of a weapon, theft and possession of property from crime.

Henry was released on parole on multiple occasions, only to quickly breach his conditions and have his parole revoked. He was given another chance in February 2009 when he was granted statutory release, which means he had served at least two-thirds of his total sentence. The National Parole Board ordered him to abstain from all drugs and alcohol, saying they were risk factors that had contributed to his previous crimes and breaches.

"You have a history of substance abuse which escalates your erratic and unpredictable behaviour," the board wrote.

In December 2009, a required urinalysis Henry provided was positive for marijuana. Although they had grounds to revoke his statutory release and put him back behind bars, Henry's case-management team decided to give him a break. They took the same approach when he failed another drug test in early April 2010, this time by consuming alcohol.

"You were provided with the opportunity to access several community resources after each incident in an effort to address your behaviour," the parole board wrote.

According to the board, Henry went to a house party on the night of April 18 and began consuming alcohol. Henry admitted he got into a car with several other people at the party in the time preceding Lathlin's slaying.

"You were reportedly drinking to celebrate the birth of your child. You have indicated that if you had not been drinking you would not have accepted a ride from these associates/co-accused," the parole board wrote.

Henry denied involvement in Lathlin's death, saying only he was in the "wrong place at the wrong time" and he is innocent.

Henry appeared before the parole board on July 15, where his statutory release was revoked. He was already being held in custody on the manslaughter charge.

"You indicated there was no excuse for your return to substance abuse in the community and your alcohol consumption was more extensive than what was originally disclosed. You acknowledged consuming alcohol with friends and with your wife over the last few months of your release," the parole board wrote.

"The courts will determine your innocence or guilt with regard to your serious outstanding charge. However, your choice to repeatedly breach your condition to abstain... is a significant concern."

The parole board criticized Henry for not taking advantage of the breaks he was given by being allowed to remain free despite getting caught breaching conditions of release.

"Despite these opportunities, you chose to return to high-risk behaviour by repeatedly consuming alcohol and failing to disclose your activities. Your actions and decisions in the community were not consistent with the behavioural expectation of an individual on statutory release," the board wrote. "The reasons for your suspension were within your control and your risk rose to an unmanageable level."

This man should have received more assistance and support after being granted statutory release. He should have been required to participate in addiction treatment, risk management and emotion management programming to help reduce his chances of re-offending. 

Parole tougher to get under proposed Conservative law

Parole tougher to get under proposed law

OTTAWA -- If you want to be paroled early in Canada, you're going to have to earn your way out.

Federal Public Safety Minister Vic Toews will today introduce a law putting the onus on offenders to prove they aren't a public safety risk by completing prison-run programs before they will be granted parole.

"Our government has long been concerned, even when we were in opposition, that individuals are simply receiving parole as a matter of right," Toews said Monday at a news conference on another subject.

He said the government is "very soon" going to move on the problem with a shift towards the philosophy that "you have to earn your parole."

Most offenders in Canada can apply for day parole after serving as little as one-sixth of their sentence and for full parole after serving as little as a third of their sentence. Those sentenced to life in prison for first-degree murder can't apply for full parole until they've served 25 years.

The National Parole Board has little room to deny applications unless there is evidence an offender will commit a violent offence if released. The government has said even if a white-collar criminal is likely to commit fraud once on the outside, the parole board often can't deny early parole.

In an emailed statement, Toews said his government is putting the rights of victims before the rights of criminals.

"Part of keeping our communities safe is ensuring criminals serve their full sentences behind bars -- not releasing them into our streets early," he wrote.

Last fall, the government introduced legislation to stop automatic early parole for white-collar criminals and other non-violent offenders. The bill was never debated and died when Prime Minister Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament in December.

Toews' office would not confirm Monday whether the legislation on the docket this week is identical or adds any additional changes to parole conditions.

Last fall, Toews said the government would deal with the issue of statutory release once the issue of early parole had been dealt with. Statutory release requires offenders to be released on parole after serving two-thirds of their sentence. Only prisoners serving life sentences are considered ineligible for statutory release.

Liberal public safety critic Mark Holland said there is a definite need for parole laws to be tightened but he said doing so has to be done with a view to the serious overcrowding already in prisons in Canada.

"I think there is room to tighten it but I don't want to do it on the back of a napkin," said Holland.

He said the issue should be studied thoroughly by Parliament first to ensure that however the parole system is amended, it is done properly.

We should NOT abolish statutory release. The Conservatives say that ensuring criminals serve their full sentences in prison will make communities safer. They are completely wrong. If they abolished stat release, there would be more prisoners serving longer portions of their sentence in prison, which creates further overcrowding and is expensive. Having criminals serve their full sentence in prison and then be released, actually makes society a LOT more dangerous, not safer, in the long run. Longer sentences have been proven to increase the rates of re-offending (due to the negative prison environment, influences, gangs, drugs and subculture. Prisons are the schools of crime.) and decrease the likelihood of successful reintegration (offenders become dependent, lack rehabilitation, life skills, institutionalized, and have adopted the pro criminal norms, values and behaviours). Rehabilitation and reintegration need to be the main focus and emphasis of our prisons and criminal justice system. Another major problem with having offenders serve their full sentences before being released, is that when they are released on the warrant expiry date, they will be released from prison with no period of supervision in the community, no conditions, no assistance and no support. This will highly increase the chances that these offenders will re-offend. With financial difficulties, addictions, little rehabilitation, little life skills, unemployment, no housing, no support/assistance, no programming/treatment resources, etc., these offenders are more likely to resort back to a criminal lifestyle. This is not in society's best interests and does not serve the public safety. A period of mandatory supervision in the community is critical to successful reintegration and to assisting offenders in becoming productive and law abiding members of society. There is no evidence that abolishing stat release would increase community safety, in fact, it would make communities less safe. The less time spent in prison, the more likely individuals are to successful reintegration. Prisons fail at addressing the root causes and contributing factors to criminal behaviour.   

When has "What Works" ever been a serious consideration for the Tories. Or Joe Public for that matter? People far prefer to stay ignorant of the scientific data, in favour of ranting about "justice" and "accountability" and "getting tough on crime".

Unfortunately in Canada, we have seen the pendulum shift to a less educated population, which usually translates into far right thinking - think the German population circa WW1 and WW2....

For Stephen Harper and Vic Toews, this translates into a perfect storm. They can be seen to be meeting the will of the people, while simultaneously putting forth their fascist agenda... 

Harper government moves to impose "earned parole"

Harper government moves to impose earned parole

OTTAWA — The Harper government intends to table legislation that would force offenders to earn their parole instead of being released into community supervision before serving their full sentences.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said Monday he will introduce a bill that makes good on the longtime Conservative election promise of imposing "earned parole."

"Our government is moving toward, very simply put, you have to earn your parole, you have to justify being out on parole and we will be taking steps fairly soon in respect of that particular issue," he said.

Toews plans to hold a news conference Tuesday morning after tabling his legislation in the House of Commons.

As it stands, release is virtually automatic after prisoners serve two-thirds of their sentences; they complete the remainder under supervision in the community.

Prisoners serving life or indeterminate sentences, however, are ineligible and statutory release can also be denied if an offender is believed to be dangerous.

The government also tabled a bill last fall to end "accelerated parole," in which offenders convicted of non-violent crimes, such as white-collar crime, are eligible for day parole after serving one-sixth of their sentences and full parole after completing one-third.

That bill died when Prime Minister Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament in December.

Chris McCluskey, a spokesman for Toews, did not respond to an email request Monday to clarify how far the government will go in its new bill — whether it would include abolishing statutory release, or accelerated parole, or both.

The House of Commons is expected to break for its summer recess as early as this week so it is one of the government's last chances until September to introduce legislation.

In late 2007, a key recommendation of a government-appointed panel was to eliminate statutory release in favour of earned parole tied to following a corrections plan.

In a counter-report last year, prisoner-rights advocates Graham Stewart and Michael Jackson quoted an estimate from the John Howard Society that ending statutory release — which would mean offenders would spend 50 per cent more time incarcerated — would cost at least $1 billion. There were no further details of the cost estimate in the report.

Stewart and Jackson noted that one of the justifications for adopting statutory release in the first place was to better protect the public by ensuring prisoners would be supervised in the community for a period of time rather than leaving penitentiaries with no strings attached.

Abolishing stat release would have detrimental effects. First of all, it is very expensive because more prisoners will be spending longer portions of their sentence in prison. This also creates further overcrowding. Mandatory supervision in the community is essential in facilitating successful reintegration and rehabilitation of offenders. Without it, offenders who did not earn parole would be released with no supervision, conditions, assistance or support, and this would increase their rates of re-offending. This is NOT in society's best interests or in the interests of public safety.

Those who cannot be rehabilitated and don't deserve to live a normal life should be kept in jail (and I am more than okay with paying taxes for them to do so) and those who can should get proper rehabilitation services for them to become contributing members of society. At this point we really have neither, and thus brings us to the ridiculous amount of crime we have.

Most inmates in Headingley are there for crimes of stupidity or they are victims of drug prohibition. Criminal masterminds are pretty thin on the ground. Lots of gang members having stupid contests, riots being the acme of that art. You live under the law of the jungle, the toughest guy is always right. Whoever has the highest level of violence on tap runs the place, with the tacit consent of the staff. Bullies give workshops in their art at the slightest provocation. The guards generally get there too late or not at all.

Think jail is a great place to be? Then you're merely flaunting your ignorance. I feel sorry for anyone who's life is so pitiful that they would think jail was an improvement. All those great facilities? First off, they're not so great. Second, you have to be ready to fight for these privileges. Since you're going to be seeing these people at close quarters for a while, not a good strategy. It's generally best to leave that sort of thing to the gangs and just keep your head down and read a book.

Some people belong in jail but most don't. Maybe the commenters that are designing schemes to have their revenge on anyone that runs afoul of the law could instead bend their wit to coming up with a way to deal with these non-criminals. Something like a halfway house might be the answer. Helping is a lot better for the soul than hating.

This is a tough situation for Mr. Toews. I do think that parole should be earned, but for the ones that don't earn it, this will only make it more likely that they reoffend when they get out. There should still be certain conditions for those that are released after serving a full sentence. Hopefully Mr Toews addresses this issue as well.

generally we don't send people to jail for non-violent crimes. Except for maybe drug crimes, which I don't quite agree with. Most of the time people in jail have committed some sort of violent crime, and then jail is justified. However like I said, there should be better rehabilitation services. I'll admit a big problem is gang members getting together and plotting things out in jail, and I'm not sure what the best solution would be to that, but I think it would help to have options for them. You can't force treatment or rehabilitation on them, so if the options are there and they still choose to lead the gang life, even in jail, then that's their call. They can continue down that life and so long as they are kept in jail, then it's not really a worry of society's.

Jail is probably the biggest obstacle to rehabilitating the criminals that could be rehabilitated. All it teaches is things like might is right. Weapons help. Violence pays. I have no problem with locking up violent people but jail has nothing but a negative effect on non-violent people. We shouldn't be throwing them in for the bullies and misanthropes to feed on.
 

We should NOT abolish statutory release!

Toews wants to make it tougher for individuals to receive parole

OTTAWA — Public Safety Minister Vic Toews says he plans to make it harder for convicted criminals to get parole.

"Our government has long been concerned individuals are simply receiving parole as a matter of right," said Toews, at a news conference on another topic in Ottawa this afternoon.

He said the government is "very soon" going to moving on the problem with a shift towards the philosophy that "you have to earn your parole."

He said there are a number of cases that demonstrate why this is necessary.

Toews has already introduced legislation this spring to make it more difficult for convicted sex offenders to be pardoned.

With Parliament expected to rise before the end of this week, legislation dealing with parole could be introduced in just days.

Earned parole, not statutory release: critics

Give some cons an inch and they’ll take a mile.

This was the case all four times Winnipegger Blaine George Hanson was granted statutory release from prison in recent years.

Critics believe it provides ammunition in their calls for changes to Canada’s statutory release system, which is an undelivered election promise by the Conservative federal government.

Hanson, who was arrested on the Legislature’s steps after he allegedly fled police in a stolen car Tuesday, violated his release conditions — usually by absconding from a halfway house— and reoffended within days of getting out in 2008, 2009 and twice in 2010.

Twice the 45-year-old breached conditions the day he was freed.

Despite repeated breaches, Hanson is granted statutory release because, by law, it is virtually automatic to federal inmates, who didn’t apply for parole or were denied full parole, when they complete two-thirds of a sentence. The final third is served in the community under supervision and conditions.

Inmates serving life or indeterminate sentences aren’t eligible.

Statutory release is denied in rare cases when a detention hearing determines the person is likely to seriously injure or kill, or commit a sexual offence against a child or serious drug offence.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, Manitoba’s senior Conservative MP, said Ottawa is still committed to creating a system of earned parole.

Hanson’s pattern of breaches supports critics’ argument for earned release.

“They are more likely to respect the conditions,” said Marc Pellerin, vice-president of the Winnipeg Police Association.

Early release should be granted based on the inmate’s behaviour and response to treatment, said Manitoba Justice Minister Andrew Swan.

Tory MLA and justice critic Kelvin Goertzen said authorities should be given wider powers to deny statutory release if there is a history of noncompliance.

Hanson is serving a three-year, three-month sentence for two counts of attempted break and enter with intent, and other offences.

The sentence, previously extended due to convictions for offences committed during statutory releases, was to expire in July before Tuesday’s run-in with police.

Hanson was arrested outside the Legislature five days after his latest release. Prior to that he was released March 11 but walked away from a halfway house March 15, leading to a March 30 arrest at gunpoint, according to National Parole Board documents.

Hanson was allegedly driving a vehicle that had stolen licence plates while high on heroin and refused to stop for police.

He was returned to prison but released again June 3 after his statutory release date was recalculated.

Charges for those two incidents are before the courts.

Throw away the key -- Get rid of stat release

You can’t get a better example of why Canada should get rid of statutory release than the case of Winnipegger Blaine George Hanson.

This is the moron who allegedly stole a Pontiac Sunbird last week, led police on a high-speed chase in downtown Winnipeg, crashed on the front lawn of the lieutenant-governor’s residence on Kennedy Street and was eventually tackled by cops on the front steps of the legislature.

Hanson is a repeat offender who was freed from prison on statutory release earlier this month. Statutory release is where inmates are set free virtually automatically after serving two-thirds of their sentence.

Instead of being behind bars where Hanson belonged, he was out putting the lives and safety of the public at risk by racing through city streets at speeds of about 80 km/h, according to witnesses.

Hanson was released from prison and within days violated the conditions of his release by allegedly walking away from the halfway house where he was supposed to reside.

According to National Parole Board records, it’s not the first time Hanson has breached the conditions of his statutory release. He violated the conditions not twice, not three times, but a stunning four times.

Yet they keep granting him early release, which in most cases they must do automatically by law.

Which is exactly why the law needs to be changed.

Inmates like Hanson obviously have no interest in reintegrating into society. They’re given chance after chance and they keep breaking the law and putting the community at risk.

Those types of repeat offenders should never be released early. They should be kept behind bars as long as possible.

That’s not to say parole should be eliminated.

Parole is a necessary part of good corrections. We want inmates who are interested in changing their lives to reintegrate slowly into society.

But they have to earn it.

Statutory release is not earned and it’s not parole. It’s virtually automatic, even for repeat violators like Hanson, who basically thumb their noses at the law, including terrorizing our communities.

Unfortunately the federal Conservatives promised in 2006 to get rid of statutory release and still haven’t done it.

An independent review of Canada’s corrections system more than two years ago recommended, among other things, that statutory release be eliminated namely because people like Hanson were being released repeatedly despite numerous breaches of their conditions.

But for some reason the Tories, who have made a number of other positive changes to our justice system, are slow to act on this one.

I’m beginning to wonder if the John Howard Society types and other hug-a-thug organizations are starting to get to the Tories.

How else to explain why they’ve failed to act on one of their most important election promises from 2006?

Had they acted sooner, Hanson would not have been on the streets last week.

The social worker types can argue all they want about why we need to keep statutory release. But the reality is, had this guy been behind bars where he belonged, the public would not have been put at risk from a dangerous, high-speed car chase.

That’s just a fact.

I do not believe in the system of earned parole, but instead believe that the government needs to keep stat release. Like many of the Conservatives' other tough on crime policies, I do not see a need to get tough on crime. Crime rates in Canada have been declining for the past 25 years and the rates of violent and non-violent re-offending by those on stat release have also been dropping steadily. So why does the government need to get tougher? Their policies are not based on evidence or research, but on an emotional and misinformed public opinion. There is no evidence that abolishing supervised release for high risk offenders is a reasonable balance against the risk of direct, unsupervised release to the community. Stat release is essential for successful reintegration, as prisoners are supervised in the community. If an inmate did not earn parole and was therefore released at their warrant expiry date, they would be released from prison with no supervision, no conditions, no obligations and no assistance. I can assure you that this would NOT make society safer, in fact, it would make communities more dangerous. An offender released with no conditions or assistance in reintegration, is much more likely to re-offend than one who is supervised. Releasing offenders who have not earned parole, with no conditions or supervision, is NOT in society's best interests, especially concerning public safety. Abolishing stat release would have a negative impact on the federal prison population as more offenders would be serving longer periods of time in prison, leading to further overcrowding, tension and violence. Combine this with mandatory minimum sentences, and you are looking at a substantial increase in the prison population, which has adverse effects on inmates and only increases their chances of re-offending and decreases their likelihood of successful reintegration. It would also have a negative impact on aboriginals. They are already over-represented in prisons (18%) compared to accounting for 3% of the general population and that number is predicted to be 25% in less than 10 years. Prisons are inappropriate sentences for many aboriginals, who come from impoverished communities/reserves plagued by poverty, addictions, unemployment and family violence. Aboriginals need culturally appropriate programming, which incorporates their methods and traditional teachings, such as healing lodges and circles. 

Abolishing stat release means that aboriginals will be less likely to earn parole. They will be serving more time in prisons with inappropriate programming. Gradual release will therefore be more difficult for them to obtain and as a result, more individuals will be incarcerated for longer periods of time. 

Stat release better protects the public by ensuring that prisoners are supervised in the community for a period of time rather than leaving with no supervision. There is no evidence that abolishing stat release would increase community safety which is irresponsible policy making by the government. It would not make us safer as more prisoners would be released on their warrant expiry date with no supervision! No matter what the form of release is, prisoners are not released if they are considered to pose a significant risk to the public safety. We already have a system of earned parole in Canada! If a prisoner wishes to obtain parole, they earn their release by demonstrating that they would not pose a risk to the public by exhibiting good behaviour, participating in programming, gaining prison employment, etc. Prisoners EARN stat release by showing good conduct on parole. Community release is never an absolute. Parole can be revoked. Prisoners are only eligible for parole, it is never a given right. We should trust the decisions of the parole board, in considering public safety when releasing prisoners. Parole is an incentive to promote good behaviour and our current community release mechanisms are proven to be more successful at reintegrating prisoners than longer terms of imprisonment. Earned parole is more restrictive and will result in inmates serving longer portions of their sentence in prison as opposed to being reintegrated into society as productive citizens. THE LESS TIME SPENT IN PRISON, THE MORE LIKELY INDIVIDUALS ARE TO SUCCESSFULLY REINTEGRATING THEMSELVES INTO SOCIETY, THAN THOSE WHO SERVE MORE TIME! 

These stats are from Public Safety Canada (08/09): 

Of those on day parole/full parole, 76% did NOT commit another offence or breach their conditions. 16% did return to prison for breaches and only 6% committed a non-violent offence and 1.7% committed a violent offence. 

Of those on stat release, 60% did NOT breach their conditions or commit a new offence, 8.4% committed a non-violent offence and only 1.3% committed a violent offence. 30% breached their conditions. To me, this illustrates that stat release is relatively effective, although it could be improved, it does NOT need to be abolished. A period of supervision is critical for successful reintegration. We need to examine the nature of the breaches and need more discretion when deciding who to send back to prison. There is room for improvement regarding stat release but we do not need to increase reliance on criminalization and imprisonment to enhance public safety. 

The rate of conviction for violent offences while under community supervision has declined since 1990. Why is there a need to get tougher? These proposals of legislation will erode community-based resources and the punishment agenda which plans to restrict community release will likely force the closure of many community based reintegration programs, which are essential. Along with MMS which limit the ability of judges to sentence individuals to community alternatives, the government is dismantling community based resources which are PROVEN TO BE LESS COSTLY AND MORE EFFECTIVE AT ENHANCING PRISONERS' ABILITY TO SUCCESSFULLY REINTEGRATE INTO SOCIETY! Increasing the reliance on longer terms of imprisonment is ineffective and expensive and in the long term, does not reduce or prevent crime as it fails to address the root causes and contributing factors of criminal behaviour. 

Eliminating accelerated parole release and stat release would only lead to increases in the prison population, less safe communities as a result of individuals being released with no supervision, overcrowding in prisons, and double bunking. All of these things have adverse effects on inmates' psychological states and increase the chances of re-offending. There will be increased levels of violence and abolishing stat release will be costly, as more prisoners will be serving longer portions of their sentences in prison. It costs $99,000 a year to incarcerate ONE male prisoner. Abolishing stat release will also result in the release of more prisoners into the community with mental illnesses and leaving them without conditions, supervision or support. This is a dangerous move.

These proposed changes to legislation only focus on the socially disadvantaged, powerless and marginalized individuals. 

Both parole and mandatory supervision are important for reintegrating criminals into society, so they are less likely to re-offend. Most criminals can become law abiding and productive members once again, with help and assistance.

I posted this comment on the Winnipeg Free Press: Why does Toews want to make communities more dangerous and compromise public safety? There is no research to support the abolition of stat release enhancing public safety. In fact, it will make communities less safe and more prisoners will be released from prison on their warrant expiry dates, if they do not earn parole, and will be released with no conditions, obligations, supervision, assistance or support. This greatly increases their chances of re-offending and decreases the likelihood of successful reintegration. Statutory release is essential, to facilitate reintegration into society. Releasing individuals when their sentence is complete, who have not earned parole, is NOT in society's best interests. Be on the lookout for a more dangerous society if stat release is abolished!