What if released offenders were fully supervised?

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 14/03/2024 (541 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

What if?

Eleven people were murdered and 17 injured when Myles Sanderson went on a violent rampage in the James Smith Cree Nation and the neighbouring town of Weldon, Sask., in September of 2022. Myles Sanderson had been identified as breaching his conditions of release by his parole officer and an arrest warrant had been issued for him in May, five months before the murders.

In Manitoba, four indigenous women died and Jeremy Skibicki is in jail, charged with their murder. When the killings took place, Jeremy Skibicki was out on bail awaiting trial for previous offences.

Most people aren’t aware that the potential breaching of conditions of release is one of the most important crime prevention tools available to society.

According to research done by former Winnipeg police inspector Cam Baldwin, over one-third of arrests for serious offences are committed by people on one form or another of supervised release.

Our experience in crime prevention in North Point Douglas taught us that people who are oriented towards committing crime are very aware of their ability to get away with crime or not. The more intense the supervision, the less likely people are to reoffend and commit crimes.

The intensity of supervision varies greatly in the criminal justice system. A person on parole is still serving his penitentiary sentence and has been allowed to live in the community under very strict conditions. His parole officer checks on him regularly and has the power to order his return to the penitentiary if he does not abide by the conditions.

Myles Sanderson had been serving a penitentiary term and had been released to the community on statutory release. His parole officer had found him to be failing to live up to the conditions of his release, including not living where he was ordered to live and not reporting to his parole officer. An arrest warrant was issued and the RCMP was asked to arrest him and return him to the penitentiary.

The RCMP, responsible for tracking down and arresting people who have had their parole revoked, did not make any effort to locate and arrest Sanderson as they are required to do under our criminal justice system, for four months.

Jeremy Skibicki’s situation is different. He was released on bail and was awaiting trial. One of the conditions of his release was that he live at his designated address and keep the courts and police aware of his living arrangements.

Skibicki moved from his designated address months before he is alleged to have committed the four murders. For months, he received none of the court-ordered supervision and his bail conditions were not enforced.

Breaching living conditions on bail does not result in an order to be incarcerated.

Usually, police will identify the new address and the bail conditions will be changed and police will then check on the person at their new address. People on bail are aware that police can and usually do check on them irregularly and at unannounced times. This irregular checkup has the impact of keeping the accused person aware that police are more likely to catch them if they commit additional crimes.

The question, “What if?” is perhaps an unfair question, because we cannot know what would have not happened if both the RCMP and the Winnipeg Police Service had undertaken their required responsibilities.

What if the RCMP had searched for and arrested Sanderson in the month after his statutory release had been revoked and he had been returned to the penitentiary? If he was reincarcerated, he could not have committed the massive murder of 11 people and wounding of 17 others.

What if Winnipeg police had tracked down Skibicki, who was very publicly visiting homeless shelters where he allegedly befriended women that were later murdered? What if the Winnipeg police knew where he was living and were checking up on him regularly?

Would the potential visit from the police at an unexpected time have discouraged him from allegedly committing murder?

In both cases, we have no idea if the required supervision and enforcement for prior offences had taken place, 15 people might be still alive. What we do know is that one of the checks and balances that is meant to keep our society safe did not function as they are supposed to.

The purpose of asking “What if?” is not to lay blame, but to learn.

The criminal justice system needs to be reminded of the importance of all its internal mechanisms. The system of checks and balances that protect society from the impact of violent crimes include police following up on court-ordered apprehensions and release conditions.

It is crucial that the courts and society as a whole recognize the massively important role police play in keeping us safe. Police officers I have talked to, from very senior to front-line officers, all express frustration and disillusionment at a perceived lack of support they receive. I hear the phrases, why bother arresting someone when they are immediately released? Why breach someone for not keeping the terms of their recognizance when they are released before I’ve finished the paperwork?

The new government in Manitoba has announced funding and new powers for police to keep track of persons released on their own recognizance and to refuse bail if required for the communities safety. Hopefully Winnipeg police and the RCMP will recognize and prioritize the crime prevention responsibility they have, to do the enforcement of court orders and parole breaches, particularly the regular visits to the homes of persons under supervision. Equally, hopefully the courts will support the work done by police in enforcing their court orders.

Sel Burrows is the co-ordinator of the Point Powerline, an inner city crime prevention organization.