I was reading the Free Press the other day and there was mention of the 2009 Annual Report by the Winnipeg Police Services. The article said one could go to the WPS website to get a look at the report as well. So, of course I went looking for it. I was not able to find a link to the report myself, but after contacting the people at 311, I was given the URL for the Annual Reports. (http://www.winnipeg.ca/police/AnnualReports/annualreports.stm)
I took a look at the report, specifically the stats that were compiled at the end of it.
There were a few statistics that I found interesting. First, the stats showing crimes in the various parts of the City. I fully expected the North End (District 3) to show the highest number of crimes. That's a given, everyone knows that it would be the highest. For 2009 district 3 showed 40,106 crimes. But what I found more interesting is that the East District was not far behind at 36,106 crimes. Then I had a look at District 6, and it had more than half the amount found in District 3, showing 23,256 crimes. District 2 had the fewest crimes, with only 17,443. In looking at those same crime statistics I saw that District 2 and 6 showed a 7% increase in crime, where District 3 only had a 5% increase, and the East District had a meer 1% increase in crime.
The violent crimes, being murder, attempted murder, assaults, abductions, robberies, and other crimes against persons were higher in District 3 than the other Districts in the city, but the same could not be said for property crimes. The East District had the highest property crimes, at 10,692, followed by District 3 at 8,660, then District 6 showing 7,182, and lastly District 2 having only 5,061 property crimes in 2009.
As I looked further into the crime stats I saw a very disturbing statistic. It was the one concerning Young Offenders. In Total Criminal Code Offences, 23% of the offences were committed by Young Offenders. The information showed 16% of all Criminal Code Offences were committed by Male Young Offenders and 7% by Female Young Offenders. Breaking the statistics down, crimes against persons show 20% being committed by young offenders (14% male, 6% female). Crimes against Property are committed by Young Offenders 34% off the time (23% male, 11% female), and Traffic Offences are committed only 4% off the time by Young Offenders (3% male, 1% female).
When I think about the total number of crimes that are committed by Young Offenders I am reminded of the newspaper articles citing youths being arrested for the 10th, 50th, 80th time for the same type of offences. And these same youth are set loose on bail to continue their crime sprees. They are a huge burden on Police resources, and the court system. They are also quite a burden on citizens who are violated by their actions. Yet nothing is being done to correct the Youth Justice System in our city, province, or country.
I was at a breakfast a few weeks back, held by the Manitoba Justice people. One of the speakers at the breakfast was Chief Justice Raymond Wyant. In his speech he mentioned one success story in Brooklyn, New York. Apparently, they brought in a Community based court system. It is called the Red Hook Community Justice Center (http://www.courtinnovation.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=572). It started in 2000, and has become a huge success. They system worked because the criminals were held accountable to their communities. And the community has a say in how people are sentenced. Instead of sending the offender through the regular criminal system, they are judged by their peers, possibly having to pay restitution in the way of repairing damages done, or doing volunteer work in the community. Could you imagine if the person who had been charged with the 80 counts of graffitti actually had to go out and remove the graffitti in the neighbourhood as a penalty. Maybe he would think twice about committing the crimes if he had to go out every day for the entire summer removing graffitti.
We need to put pressure on the governments, at all levels, to correct the Youth Justice System, and reduce the number of crimes being committed by the young people of our city.
Our children are supposed to be our greatest treasures, not our biggest threats. We need to take action and work with community organizations to keep kids out of gangs. We need to provide better after school programs for kids at risk, and fund the community centers in the North End, and other at risk areas, so they can keep kids busy and off the streets. We need to change the way Young Offenders are handled after being caught for crimes, and give the Police and Courts the tools to stop these youth from re-offending.
These are OUR kids, Winnipeg, not just the kids of the North End.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
The Confusion of City By-Laws Information
When I first reported an act of illegal dumping of construction materials into the dumpster behind my house I was told the By-Law department could not proceed. They did not have access to the MPI database that would allow them to find the owner of the vehicle used. This was back in August of this year. I spoke with the By-Law officers' boss, Kevin Seaford, and again was told the department did not have access to the MPI database.
My blog has been logging my efforts to have this issue corrected. I mean, how can the By-Law department not have access to the information they need in order to perform their jobs? I have been requesting information from the Mayor's office, as Mayor Sam Katz, himself, promised me he would take care of this issue personally. When he called to ask for my vote, I told him about the issue with the By-Law department. He said he would see to it personally that my issue was taken care of.
Well, I guess the Mayor came through on his promise. I was contacted by the By-Law department on November 10 and told they finally got the truck owners name.
But when did the Mayors' office decide to uphold the promise? Was it when Gordon Sinclair published my story in the Winnipeg Free Press on Oct 21? Or was it just done out of the kindness of his heart?
I thought my fight was over when I went down to the By-Law office to make my statement regarding the illegal dumping of the construction material. I thought the issue of the By-Law department not having access to information was corrected. But no. When I asked Kevin Seaford about that, he said this was a one time deal. He said they still do not have access to the MPI database. He also said nobody has ever been fined for illegal dumping.
I don't know what made me more upset. Was it that nothing had been fixed? Or was it that the problem was far deeper than I ever imagined. Not only did they not have access to the information they needed to prosecute offenders, but none of the offenders have ever been fined. Not ever.
When I was first told that the By-Law department did not have access to the MPI database, I was told the reason was because of the Privacy Act. Or at least that is what I thought I heard from the two people I spoke with at the By-Law office. When I checked back on the notes I made when speaking with Kevin Seaford on the phone, I had written "Asked & Asked, denied, privacy laws". I remember that conversation. Seaford had said he had asked and asked for the information, and it was denied. He must have given the reason as 'privacy laws' at that point.
When I found the section of the Privacy Act that actually allows for information to be provided in order to assist in the prosecution of a crime, I thought I was on to something. So, I called Kevin Seaford at the By-Law office, to see what he had to say about this new finding of mine. The response was not what I had expected. Kevin said I got it wrong. Apparently the Privacy Act has nothing to do with the reason the By-Law Office does not have access to the MPI database. He said all he could tell me was that his office does not have access to the MPI database. He suggested I speak with his boss, or his bosses boss (Peter deGraaf).
I am all for going to the top, and I had Peter deGraaf's email address. So I sent him an email. I want to know the "official" reason why the By-Law department does not have access to information needed to do their job.
Well, I got an answer from Peter tonight.
So, does this mean that the By-Laws department does have access to information they need to take care of these illegal dumping issues? Is there really an established process for the By-Laws department to request information from MPI to do their jobs?
How could there be a misunderstanding? Did they loose the manual on how to make a request? Or have they never made a request before and just didn't know which button to push to send the request through?
What is the actual probem? Is it that they really do not want to prosecute these illegal dumpers? Is it that the North End is not important enough to process any request by it's citizens? Are North Enders really such sub-citizens that the By-Law department has a policy of not acting on their complaints? I sure hope I got this one wrong.
My blog has been logging my efforts to have this issue corrected. I mean, how can the By-Law department not have access to the information they need in order to perform their jobs? I have been requesting information from the Mayor's office, as Mayor Sam Katz, himself, promised me he would take care of this issue personally. When he called to ask for my vote, I told him about the issue with the By-Law department. He said he would see to it personally that my issue was taken care of.
Well, I guess the Mayor came through on his promise. I was contacted by the By-Law department on November 10 and told they finally got the truck owners name.
But when did the Mayors' office decide to uphold the promise? Was it when Gordon Sinclair published my story in the Winnipeg Free Press on Oct 21? Or was it just done out of the kindness of his heart?
I thought my fight was over when I went down to the By-Law office to make my statement regarding the illegal dumping of the construction material. I thought the issue of the By-Law department not having access to information was corrected. But no. When I asked Kevin Seaford about that, he said this was a one time deal. He said they still do not have access to the MPI database. He also said nobody has ever been fined for illegal dumping.
I don't know what made me more upset. Was it that nothing had been fixed? Or was it that the problem was far deeper than I ever imagined. Not only did they not have access to the information they needed to prosecute offenders, but none of the offenders have ever been fined. Not ever.
When I was first told that the By-Law department did not have access to the MPI database, I was told the reason was because of the Privacy Act. Or at least that is what I thought I heard from the two people I spoke with at the By-Law office. When I checked back on the notes I made when speaking with Kevin Seaford on the phone, I had written "Asked & Asked, denied, privacy laws". I remember that conversation. Seaford had said he had asked and asked for the information, and it was denied. He must have given the reason as 'privacy laws' at that point.
When I found the section of the Privacy Act that actually allows for information to be provided in order to assist in the prosecution of a crime, I thought I was on to something. So, I called Kevin Seaford at the By-Law office, to see what he had to say about this new finding of mine. The response was not what I had expected. Kevin said I got it wrong. Apparently the Privacy Act has nothing to do with the reason the By-Law Office does not have access to the MPI database. He said all he could tell me was that his office does not have access to the MPI database. He suggested I speak with his boss, or his bosses boss (Peter deGraaf).
I am all for going to the top, and I had Peter deGraaf's email address. So I sent him an email. I want to know the "official" reason why the By-Law department does not have access to information needed to do their job.
>> Peter,
>>
>> As you know I have filed a complaint with the By-Law department
>> regarding the illegal dumping of construction materials in the Autobin
>
>> behind my house. I had included a photograph of the individual,
>> including the white
>> 1/2 ton truck, the Manitoba license plate number and a clear image of
>> the person doing the dumping. I sent this complaint in on August 20,
>> and received a reference number of 405412. I was told the following
>> Thursday by telephone that the By-Law department could not proceed
>> further because they did not have access to information from the MPI
>> database that would allow them to obtain the vehicle owner of the
> truck committing the crime.
>> The reason given at that time was that it involved the Privacy Act. I
>> understand the information regarding the owner of the vehicle was
>> obtained, but as a special, one time instance.
>> I have since read the Privacy Act, and find that Section 17(2) b
>> states information can be made available from a public body if it "is
>> necessary to prosecute the violation or continue the investigation".
>> I would like to know why the By-Law Department informed me that they
>> do not have access to information they need to follow through on these
>
>> By-Law infractions. I do not see the Privacy Act infringing, in any
>> way, the obtaining of information needed in the prosecution of a
>> violation. I do not see any obstruction to information needed in the
>> enforcement of this By-Law.
>>
>> Rae Butcher
Well, I got an answer from Peter tonight.
HI Rae,
Thank you for your communications. It would appear there was an initial
misunderstanding relative to the ability to access the necessary
information in order to proceed with this investigation at the outset.
The City of Winnipeg Community By-Law Enforcement Services Unit (CBES)
has consulted further with The City of Winnipeg Legal Services and as a
result, the matter has in fact proceeded. Also, in terms of accessing
MPI database information, Legal Services submits CBES database
information requests to MPI according to an established process with
MPI.
This case is now before the courts. We sincerely appreciate citizens
taking an active role in the health and wellbeing of our community and
once again thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Yours truly,
Peter de Graaf
Manager of Community By-law Enforcement Services City of Winnipeg
Community Services Department
So, does this mean that the By-Laws department does have access to information they need to take care of these illegal dumping issues? Is there really an established process for the By-Laws department to request information from MPI to do their jobs?
How could there be a misunderstanding? Did they loose the manual on how to make a request? Or have they never made a request before and just didn't know which button to push to send the request through?
What is the actual probem? Is it that they really do not want to prosecute these illegal dumpers? Is it that the North End is not important enough to process any request by it's citizens? Are North Enders really such sub-citizens that the By-Law department has a policy of not acting on their complaints? I sure hope I got this one wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)