There are ways to reduce recidivism; more time behind bars isn’t among them

Opinion

Tristan Mariash and David Burling have become the latest poster boys for a (once-again) growing movement to keep repeat offenders in prison longer.

Mariash, 30, was fatally shot by police after a lengthy pursuit that ended when he allegedly rammed a stolen pick up truck into a Winnipeg Police Service SUV in a final confrontation that took place in the parking lot of Providence University College, some 50 kilometres south of the city.

David Burling, was arrested some 11 hours later near Springside, Sask., nearly 500 kilometres from the spot where the shooting took place. Police said Burling had been with Mariash during the initial encounter with police but was able to flee in another vehicle with an unnamed 37-year-old woman.

Given that both Mariash and Burling had long criminal records, and both had only recently been released from jail after serving sentences for a variety of criminal acts, it’s not hard to see how these two men provide all the evidence needed to support lengthier sentences upon conviction and more stringent controls on release.

The federal Conservative party has already promised to take measures to cut down on repeat offenders by ensuring they spend more time behind bars. It’s an idea that no doubt plays well with voters.

However, politicians who promise simple solutions, such as longer sentences, are doing the public a grave injustice. Recidivism is driven by three compelling factors, none of which can be addressed by having offenders serve more time.

First, in this case, the two men appeared to be somewhat proud of their time behind bars.

Mariash and Burling had been in and out of jail for a variety of property offences, including auto theft, and weapons offences, and were both released in March. Burling still had a bullet lodged in his lower back from a 2022 encounter with RCMP.

However, any suggestion that the three years each of the two men had spent behind bars was acting as a deterrent to additional crimes was quickly dispelled upon their most-recent release.

Although family said both men were glad to be out, on social media, the two childhood friends referred to each other as “brothers” who “ride together, do time together.” Although it’s hard to tell exactly what they were thinking, there is a strong suggestion that rather than fearing more time behind bars, they were comfortable with jail being part of their identity and not concerned about going back in.

That brings us to point No. 2: either because they have learned to identify with the experience of being locked up, or simply have nothing better in their lives, research has consistently shown that incarceration, on its own does nothing to deter repeat offenders.

Last year, a meta analysis of more than 110 research studies into the short- and long-term impacts of the mass imprisonment strategy that has dominated criminal justice in the United States for more than 50 years, found that “custodial sanctions have no effect on re-offending or slightly increase it when compared with the effects of noncustodial sanctions such as probation.”

And that brings us to the very last and perhaps most pressing issue: it’s impossible to incarcerate every repeat offender indefinitely.

Most provincial jails in this country are already operating at more than 100 per cent capacity. And after a concerted effort to release more low-risk offenders during the pandemic, double-bunking in federal prisons, a key metric to assess overcrowding, is soaring to pre-pandemic levels once again.

We could always take a page out of the U.S. playbook and build more prisons and hire more correctional officers to accommodate lengthier sentences. Unfortunately, when you consider the inconvenient truth that doing so doesn’t deter repeat offenders, it quickly becomes clear that this is a road to nowhere.

We cannot stop repeat offenders, but there is a path forward to significantly reduce the number of crimes that are being committed by the same offenders. And you don’t have to look that far to find it.

Barely 24 hours after the officer-involved shooting of Mariash and Burling’s arrest, Winnipeg police released details about Project Surge, a new program launched earlier this year to help vulnerable youth that had been involved in repeat criminal offences.

Project Surge focused on 117 particularly vulnerable youth that had been involved in 1,795 police incidents, both as an accused person and victim. Thanks to the involvement of police and social service agencies, total arrests involving these youth went down from 435 prior to the launch to just 150 afterwards. Violent incidents were cut in half.

This is very much the kind of approach that is needed to deal with repeat offenders. Pre-emptive, wraparound support combined with appropriate levels of police oversight helps to keep people out of trouble and, in some instances, moving towards a better life.

It’s not clear that this kind of program would have produced a different result with Mariash and Burling. However, it doesn’t have to work in every instance for it to be worthy of more resources.

The alternative — longer sentences and more restrictions on release — is only going to make a bad situation worse.

dan.lett@winnipegfreepress.com

Dan Lett
Columnist

Dan Lett is a columnist for the Free Press, providing opinion and commentary on politics in Winnipeg and beyond. Born and raised in Toronto, Dan joined the Free Press in 1986.  Read more about Dan.

Dan’s columns are built on facts and reactions, but offer his personal views through arguments and analysis. The Free Press’ editing team reviews Dan’s columns before they are posted online or published in print — part of the our tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press’s history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates.

Source