Understanding Canadian Law Four-Book Bundle. Daniel J. Baum
Presence in High Schools
In September 2008, a new program began in Toronto. A total of thirty police officers were assigned to thirty different high schools across the city (twenty-two in the Toronto District School Board and eight in the Toronto Catholic District School Board). Some critics predicted the worst. One public school trustee said, “To have them walking the halls and wearing guns in high schools, where guns are a problem, is mind-blowing to me.”
But the critics, it seems, were wrong. At the high schools with a full-time police presence, attendance is up and suspensions and criminal charges are down.
Staff Sergeant Sharon Davis, who coordinates police officers in the School Resource Officer program, discussed the importance of the drop in criminal charges. She said, “Anybody who ends up needing to be arrested — that’s a failure. Once young people enter the criminal justice system, all studies show that their chances of success in life — finishing school, having a good job — are diminished.”
The success of the program has been in large part due to the good relationships that have been established between the police officers and the students. Officers have made an effort to get to know the students and become a part of the school communities.
The guiding principle has been that dealing with minor problems by means of warnings and no-nonsense advice can be more productive than dragging young people “into the jaws of the justice system.”
Numerous other Canadian cities and jurisdictions have comparable programs (Appleby 2009a).
The Public’s Response
When the police program in Toronto high schools was reported in the Globe and Mail, a number of people posted comments on the newspaper’s website. Most expressed support for the program, but others expressed serious concerns. A sampling of opinions follows:
“I am all for this. I am a high school teacher and the Calgary Board of Education had an officer in each of their high schools when I taught with them several years ago.… Students were often in the constable’s office, chatting, getting advice, etc. I saw a marked change in how the students perceived the police and their role.”
“If I were a student going to one of these schools, I would be happy knowing that there was someone to help and possibly protect me.”
“What has happened to our society that we require police officers in school?”
“Perhaps security guards at half the cost or more would make this a more effective program. Seemingly, it is primarily security that the police presence provides.”
“This program shows students that cops are just regular folks and can have a positive impact on lives.… No one is expecting that this program will suddenly make crime disappear from schools, but if it steers some folks away from bad choices and makes others feel safer coming to school, which early results suggest are the outcomes, then it’s an excellent program.”
“This should be seen as a temporary add-on but far more focus should be put into finding solutions to the cause of the issue of ‘dangerous’ schools. Hopefully these officers are first taking many courses prior to providing advice to kids. Placing individuals in positions of authority does not [guarantee] that they have all the answers for these kids (or correct ones).”
“When I went to high school 10–15 years ago, we had many, many violent incidents occurring. We were on the news three times in my grade 9 year! The following year we had a new principal who came in, expelled all the troublemakers and brought in a police officer to walk the halls once or twice a week. Not to mention the other police who would occasionally drive through our parking lot talking to students.… Our school cleaned itself up within a year, essentially ridding itself of a gang problem. The fact that police were there when this occurred cannot be coincidence.”
“Hopefully by being proactive rather than reactive, the police presence may help some kids who would go bad from doing so and, in any case, provide a safer classroom.”
“This [program] makes a big difference to kids when the only time they usually see police is in squad cars or getting out to arrest someone.”
“If the Toronto school board were serious about reducing violence in schools, it would spend more money on special education, psychologists and social workers.”
A police officer is a presence. How that person is viewed depends not only on how he or she sees their duty but also on how students, teachers, administrators, and parents view the police officer.
Youth or Adult Sentence for a Young Killer
On September 21, 2006, twenty-three-year-old Michael Oatway was sitting in the back of an Ottawa-Carleton bus, listening to music on his iPod. Suddenly, he was surrounded by S.M. and three friends. S.M. (not further identified because he was seventeen at the time) demanded, at knifepoint, that Oatway give him his iPod. Oatway refused, and was fatally stabbed.
S.M. was found guilty of first-degree murder on November 28, 2008, following a three-week trial. Following the verdict, prosecutors said they would be seeking an adult sentence for S.M.
Under the YCJA, if S.M. were sentenced as a youth, the maximum penalty for first-degree murder would carry a ten-year sentence, although an offender can only spend a maximum of six years in custody, with the remainder of the sentence to be served in open custody, meaning a halfway house or the offender’s own home. If sentenced as an adult under the YCJA, S.M. would serve ten years in jail (minus the time spent in pre-trial custody).
There is a very important difference between the two sentences, however. If charged as a youth, S.M.’s name would never be made public, and five years after the end of his sentence, the conviction would disappear from his record. If sentenced as an adult, the conviction would stay with him forever. He would remain on parole for the rest of his life, and his name would probably be made public.
The Sentencing Hearing
S.M.’s sentencing hearing began on January 28, 2009. As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in The Queen v. D.B., the burden of proving that he warranted an adult sentence rested with the prosecution.
The prosecutor called four of Oatway’s relatives to deliver emotional victim impact statements. Then the parole officer discussed S.M.’s difficult childhood; his unsuccessful efforts to straighten out his life; and his manipulative, aggressive nature.
S.M.’s Sentence
On February 12, 2009, Justice Robert Maranger of Ontario Superior Court ruled that S.M. should be sentenced as an adult and that the seriousness of the crime warranted the lifting of the publication ban on his identity.
S.M., now identified as Shawn McKenzie, was sentenced to ten years in jail. He would be able to apply for parole in seven-and-a-half years, however, because of the two-and-a-half years spent in custody following his arrest. (With actual adult sentences, the minimum is twenty-five years behind bars before eligibility for parole.) He will remain on parole forever, and the conviction will remain on his record.
The judge took into account McKenzie’s difficult childhood and positive attributes, but added:
I can say that I found it troublesome that throughout the proceeding, he did not show any sign of remorse or regret for his actions. He did not even express remorse or regret when the victim impact statements were read in open court at the sentencing hearing.
It could be simply false pride, as described by his counsel, or frankly, it could be the emotional detachment of a very cold-blooded individual.
What may have tipped the scales for Judge Maranger opting for an adult sentence was the testimony of probation officer Andre Sarazin, who told the court that as a professional and private citizen, he would be more comfortable if McKenzie were supervised for a longer period of time.
The judge concluded, “I am not reasonably assured that Shawn McKenzie can be rehabilitated and reintegrated safely into society through a youth court sentence.”
Solutions