New Paragraph

A catch-and-release justice system is not working for Canadians: Lewis
January 7, 2023
Peace tower on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Thursday, June 1, 2023. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick

According to Google, the meaning of 'catch and release' is "when a fish is caught and then returned to the water unharmed so that it survives and continues its existence in its natural environment." That might be very appropriate when referring to walleye and trout, but it is not working for Canadian society when it comes to violent offenders.


When Christopher Husbands entered the Toronto Eaton Centre in June 2012 and subsequently killed two people and wounded five others, he was on bail following an arrest for sexual assault. He was a known gang member. Successive Toronto Police Chiefs have publicly reported cases of gang violence committed while the members were already out on bail for violent offences.


Umar Zameer, a Toronto man charged with the murder of a Toronto police Const. Jeffrey Northrup, in July 2021, was eventually released on bail. The court is betting that he won't kill another cop.


Mohammed Majidpour of Vancouver had been convicted 30 times for such offences as assault with a weapon and uttering threats but was still released on bail when arrested for assaulting a woman with a pole in September 2022. He's been released and arrested several times since. This guy gets out before the arresting officer finishes typing the report.


Myles Sanderson had been paroled two-thirds of the way through his four-year, four-month sentence for threats, robbery, assault with a weapon and assaulting a police officer, despite being assessed as high-risk to re-offend with violence. He had fifty-nine criminal convictions in his relatively short life and was a wanted parole violator when he stabbed eleven people to death in the James Cree Nation in Saskatchewan in September 2022.


Most recently, OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique publicly said he was "outraged" that one of the accused murderers of Haldimand OPP Const. Greg Pierzchala was out on bail for firearms charges and for assaulting a police officer at the time of the killing. One has to ask themselves, "Would Const. Pierzchala have been murdered if Randall McKenzie had still been in custody?" Commissioner Carrique's feelings are obvious, as I'm sure are those of the thousands of police officers that attended this wonderful young officer's funeral on Wednesday.


This issue is as old as the hills and comes from the failings of various governments, but in my view, the past several years have seemingly been the worst period for government decision-making that negatively impacts public safety in my 45-year connection with law enforcement.


Their Bill C-5 resulted in some mandatory minimum penalties being repealed, including several firearms offences. Offences like discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of offence and robbery with a firearm. You know, those run-of-the-mill crimes that are of little risk to the public or police. At a time when violent crime and the use of illegal firearms are historically high in Canada, the decision was made to go soft on gun crime. But don't worry, we're cracking down on those legal gun owners that have been through background checks and training courses. How often are those people a threat?


At the same time, changes around bail consideration within Bill C-75 potentially allow more violent criminals to be released awaiting trial, particularly when "circumstances of Indigenous accused and of accused from vulnerable populations are considered at bail, in order to address the disproportionate impacts that the bail system has on these populations." I get that there are disproportionate representations of Indigenous people and people of colour in our court and prison systems. There is a host of socio-economic issues that need to be dealt with in a long-term strategy to address this disparity, but regardless of an offender's race, colour or difficult lives, the public and police need to be protected from those who commit crimes of violence, as much as reasonably possible.


I am not advocating that accused persons should be held without bail on a whim. I appreciate that, in most cases, being held awaiting trial may mean years of incarceration in a judicial system that moves at glacial speed. That flies in the face of the basic principle that people are innocent until proven guilty.


In the majority of criminal cases, the release of the accused on bail is obviously not a risk to public safety, like a first-time charge for a minor assault stemming from a bar fight. Obviously, there is no need to limit their pre-trial freedom. At the other end of the scale are pathological killers who are a serious threat to community safety and must be held.


And then there are cases in the middle that reasonably could go either way, but currently, the rights of the accused seem to trump the rights of potential victims to personal safety. The question for court officials becomes, where is the line in the middle?


When it comes to both bail and parole considerations, the scales need to be much more balanced to protect the public and police and not slanted to protect the rights of the accused. At this point, they are tipped too far the other way.


The other question is, why is our system so painstakingly slow? In cases where accused violent offenders are denied bail, an expedited process is obviously in their best interests and the best thing for the community as a whole.


Besides the obvious bail concerns, having trials occur much quicker will be better for all players – victims, accused, witnesses and police officers. Various provinces have tried to speed things up, however I'm not aware of any significant success stories thus far. Trial processes still tend to drag on forever, and some serious charges of violence have been dropped because they have taken too long to be heard.


I'm not suggesting that the U.S. has the perfect system by any means, but often people there are charged with serious crimes, then tried and either convicted or absolved within a year. The police officer that killed George Floyd in Minnesota was brought to trial and sentenced to jail in less than a year of being charged.


Our entire judicial system needs to be reformed – federally in terms of legislation governing bail, sentencing and parole, and then province by province to seek more effective, safe and speedier processes.



The time to tip the scales back is long overdue on all fronts so that the system errs on the side of public safety. We're talking about dangerous people here, not fish that occasionally bite a worm. Catch and release must end.

By Chris Lewis February 4, 2025
Is there any meat to this or is it more of the same?
By Chris Lewis January 4, 2025
Police know how to conduct major investigations and find bad guys. Although several specific factors change from case to case, their general investigative playbook remains the same. Once some ungodly multi-victim attack occurs, in very simplistic terms: the scene is protected, and the health of the living victims is looked after. Forensic experts begin processing the crime scene. Witnesses are located and interviewed. Physical evidence is gathered. Area and witness video recordings are collected and analyzed. Victims are identified. An off-site reunification centre is established where there are multiple victims. Next of kin notifications begin. At any point – if a suspect or suspects become known, their background is gathered, and the hunt begins. They need to be apprehended before anyone else is hurt. Area law enforcement officers need to know suspect details ASAP. “Motive” is at top of mind as investigators are synthesizing all this information, whether the suspect is identified or not. Of course, establishing motive often leads to identifying the suspect, but at other times identifying the suspect helps fill in the blanks on motive. What was the initial basis of what became a murder? Was it a robbery? Could it have been a street fight gone bad? Was it simply a want or need to kill someone specific or maybe anyone at all? That’s for investigators to sort out. There is an onus to warn the public or at least tell them something, i.e. “ongoing threat”, “stay indoors”, or “no threat to public safety”. There are reporting protocols to follow. Senior officers need to be advised up the food chain as do their political masters, so everyone knows what is happening. None of that should detract investigators from doing what they do best – catching killers. But that’s when the ravenous “thirst for knowledge” and political grandstanding often take over and completely interfere with police work. The only knowledge the investigators are thirsty for in those early hours is evidence and then identifying, locating and capturing bad people. They do not need politics monopolizing their time or efforts. The New Years Day massacre in New Orleans was big. Fourteen innocent party goers were killed and dozens injured. The world wanted to know what happened and the community wanted to know if they were in danger. I absolutely get that. However, what sometimes comes with such tragedies is everyone wanting to know everything. We see it in most mass murder cases, but this was an exceptional example of the insanity surrounding such a high-profile incident. Whatever blanks weren’t immediately filled in by police officials and verified mainstream media reports, were filled in by social media. In such cases police totally lose control of the narrative as rumours, theories, falsities, conspiracy theories and “hey look at me” games take over. The political party and individual positioning in this case was nauseating. In any multi-agency response, having the leaders of those agencies at press conferences in a united front makes sense. The public needs to have confidence that the situation is in the best of hands. But where did these massive press conferences where police officials are flanked by numerous politicians come from? I can see some elected leaders being present when a new program is launched or government funding is being announced, but it should never be in the early hours of a mass murder. Having a bunch of partisan wonks peacocking on stage and in follow-up interviews, helps no one at the operational level. As some of them were speaking, I was responding to their dumb questions in my mind: Was it a terror attack? Maybe, but let the experts figure that out. In the meantime, it’s a mass murder. Was the killer an illegal immigrant? Let’s worry about that when the dust settles. What political party is to blame for allowing him into the country? We don’t care. Maybe he was born here. Let’s sort that out if he turns out to be an illegal immigrant. Why wasn’t the area more secure? Good question for a future debrief. We need to get the FBI and HSI leaders before a government committee right away so we can find out who failed! Shut up. We have police work to do. There are always enough social media theories, private citizens’ investigations into suspects, outright lies and misinformation being spread to the public, without silly partisan games sidetracking investigators who are fighting to stay ahead of legitimate theories and tips. In the early hours of a mass murder case investigators are probably the busiest they have ever been, and don’t need any of this interference. Controlling the social media fever is next to impossible. It would take a sudden level of maturity across the populace that may be unattainable. But politicians at all levels need to get the message that they are not welcome on stage at operational press conferences and their comments to the media – if asked for them – aside from expressing sadness, thoughts, prayers and confidence in the police, should be “Our law enforcement agencies are investigating, and we need to let them do what they do.” Adding any theories, raising questions or passing blame is totally wrong. If elected officials truly care about their electorate and feel the need to say more, they should have some prior dialogue with the police leaders or their Public Information Officers to ensure that what they say is helpful as opposed to harmful. Otherwise, be quiet.
By Chris Lewis December 28, 2024
Violent Crime Remains High
Share by: