Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and
Constitutional Affairs
Issue 71 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 3, 1999
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill S-17, to amend the Criminal Code respecting criminal harassment and other related matters, met this day at 11:00 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Lorna Milne (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I see a quorum.
We have before us today Inspector Glenn Woods, the officer in charge of the Behavioural Sciences and Special Services Branch, Technical Operations Directorate of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Welcome, Inspector Woods. Please proceed.
Inspector Glenn Woods, Officer in Charge, Behavioural Sciences and Special Services Branch, Technical Operations Branch, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you about this important issue this morning.
As officer in charge of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Behavioural Sciences and Special Services Branch, my areas of responsibility include criminal profiling, geographic profiling, the violent crime linkages acknowledgement system, better known as ViCLAS, the truth verification program, which is polygraph and statement analysis, and the audio-video analysis unit.
I have been a police officer for 27 years, having worked in a number of functions including general duties, drug enforcement, major crime, organized crime, and the Witness Protection Program. I have been involved in criminal profiling and behavioural analysis since 1995. Over the course of my service, and in particular over the last four to five years, I have been exposed to and involved in a number of stalking cases. I currently provide investigators with assistance in stalking cases by conducting threat assessments and giving an opinion relative to the prediction of violence. As well, I provide profiles of the characteristics and traits of unknown offenders.
Stalker typologies have been developed for law enforcement. Their three dimensions of classification are the relationship between the stalker and the target, mental health, and the likelihood of violence occurring.
A number of other classifications have been developed. However, only one has been validated through empirical research. For the purpose of today's hearing, I will use these typologies that were developed by the Los Angeles police department to illustrate the points I wish to bring to your attention.
The three types of stalkers are commonly referred to as erotomanic, love obsessional and simple obsessional. These are not necessarily typical criminals and often include people from all walks of life.
In erotomanic cases, delusional suspects believe falsely they are loved by another, typically someone of a higher status. Persons suffering from this disorder will often go to great lengths to contact the person of their delusion. That person is usually either a person of higher socio-economic class and status or an unattainable public figure.
Erotomania is a delusional disorder classified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual used by psychiatrists. Erotomanic cases are very rare. In those cases there is no prior relationship between the victim and the stalker. Often these cases are protracted, lasting for months and years as opposed to days or weeks. They can start out by innocuous meetings between the two people, often unknown to the target of the stalker. These types of cases make up 5 to 7 per cent of stalking cases overall.
The second type, love obsessional cases, involves situations in which no prior relationship between the suspect and victim existed. This group is similar to the erotomanic type. The subject almost always does not know the victim except through the media. Some in this group hold the delusion that their victim loves them.
If, however, this erotomanic delusion is but one of several delusions and psychiatric symptoms, and the subject has primary psychiatric diagnosis, then the subject would fall into the love obsessional category. There is very little difference, which can usually be determined by an assessment by a trained forensic psychiatrist.
Others in this group are obsessed with their love without possessing the belief that the victim loves them. In love obsessional cases, again there is no prior relationship between the target and the stalker. The target and the stalker are usually unknown to one another. Other delusional disorders are common with these type of stalkers.
As in the previous type, the situation lasts for long periods of time, into months and years. Suspects are mostly male. This type make up approximately 10 per cent of the cases of stalking.
The third and final type is called "simple obsessional cases." There is some type of prior knowledge or relationship between the subject and the victim. This prior relationship varies in nature including customer, acquaintance, neighbour, professional acquaintance, boyfriend, girlfriend, and lover.
In all of these cases, obsessional activities began after the relationship had gone sour, or there was a perception by the subject of mistreatment. The subject usually then begins a campaign either to rectify the situation or to seek some type of retribution.
There is a relationship between target and stalker, which may range from intimate to a non-intimate, platonic relationship. These cases often result from, for example, a rejected advance on the part of a co-worker.
The simple obsessional cases are shorter in duration, relatively speaking. They may last weeks and months but certainly not the length of time of the previous two types. These situations are very volatile and these stalking predators are much more violent and dangerous than the other two types.
Often there is a high degree of substance abuse or personality disorder. However, there is less likelihood that the suspect is severely mentally disordered, and therefore, can more fully appreciate the boundaries that will inevitably be established by the justice system. These types are the most common and make up to 80 to 85 per cent of all stalking cases.
All three types are, by definition, obsessional in their pursuit.
Within each of these three subtypes there exists different victim and suspect profiles, motivations and threatening behaviour. If law enforcement personnel are to be at all successful in managing and intervening in a stalking case, an accurate assessment must first be made as to the type of stalking profile involved.
The same applies to the courts, as they must also have the benefit of an accurate assessment in order to make the right decisions with respect to sentencing.
I am very supportive of the amendments contained in Bill S-17 relative to increased sentencing provisions. There is no question that they will provide the courts with the ability to hand out stiffer sentences on serious cases of stalking and other related offences, when appropriate.
I am not sure how this will necessarily improve the situation given the courts often do not use the current maximum sentencing to advantage. In particular, I favour the inclusion of criminal harassment in section 753.1(2)(a) of the Criminal Code. This type of crime is well suited to be included in the section where offenders can be designated as long-term offenders, given the nature of the crime.
As are most police officers, I am a proponent of stiff sentencing for those convicted of violent crimes, including stalking-type offences, particularly when it involves repeat offenders or those who have not shown any remorse and for whom there is no reasonable expectation of successful rehabilitation.
As illustrated in the brief review of the stalker typologies, a relatively small percentage of stalkers suffer from varying degrees of mental illness which would require immediate and sustained treatment as opposed to incarceration. Without treatment, these offenders will continue to act out in this way, regardless of the length of their incarceration.
There is no question that everyone concerned would be better served if offenders who fell into this category were forced to participate in the appropriate treatment within a strictly controlled environment, rather than simply being incarcerated and then released to continue offending.
The primary concern however, should always be the safety of the victims and the public generally. Therefore, if mentally disordered offenders cannot receive the necessary treatment, or cannot be treated successfully, then they should be institutionalized as long as possible rather than being put back on the street to continue terrorizing their victims. The provision of options for the courts to consider during the sentencing phase is the kind of issue that I would like to see addressed in this legislation.
Overall, I would prefer to see a more pragmatic approach taken when drafting and amending laws of this nature. In view of the repetitive nature of this crime, emphasis should be placed on the issue of repeat offenders, as well as offences committed while an offender is under a court order.
The following are some examples of what is contained in the sentencing provisions in some jurisdictions in the United States. A handout was provided that outlines these in more detail, but I will just briefly cover some of those provisions.
The first is a court-ordered, prescribed psychological and psychiatric treatment program, when appropriate. In cases that proceed summarily, mandated conditions of probation should include a supervised psychiatric treatment program, where appropriate. In such cases, probation can be satisfied only when the treatment program is successfully completed, otherwise the suspects will be held in violation of the probation order and brought back before the judge for sentencing to the maximum term.
There is mandatory minimal sentencing for those suspects who violate these laws when there is a temporary restraining order, injunctions, or any other court order in effect prohibiting the behaviour outlined in this offence. The courts are not able to suspend imposition of sentence of a person who is convicted of stalking for a second time or who has previous convictions for similar offences.
Higher penalties for repeated offences or where weapons are used, victim impact statements during the sentencing phase, and mandatory, court-ordered, independent professional mental health assessment of an offender's need for treatment would be appropriate aspects of sentencing to apply to stalkers.
That ends my prepared statement. However, it so happens there was a case publicized in the local Ottawa newspaper a couple of days ago that speaks to this issue, involving a man by the name of Condo, who had been charged previously.
According to the article, less than one month ago, regional police did everything they could to keep self-admitted career criminal Richard Condo behind bars. The article states:
But despite the best efforts of both the police and the local Crown attorney's office, Condo was set free.
Regional police major crime Staff Sgt. Bob Pulfer said police tried to convince the judge that Condo posed a risk.
"It was a major concern for us -- to have him remanded into custody," Pulfer said.
"We're not happy at all (that he was released)."
In early May, Condo was charged with criminal harassment in connection with a complaint filed by his former wife, chiropractor Yvonne McGuire.
But on May 20, despite urging against it, Condo was released with several conditions including that he live with his mother.
Authorities were so concerned about Condo's propensity for violence that the Crown's office took the unusual step of appealing his release.
"I felt he should have been detained because he is a dangerous man," said the assistant Crown attorney...
The article goes on.
This is the kind of thing that, as police officers and law enforcers, we see on a regular basis. There are laws in place that are often not used to advantage.
That ends my statement.
The Chairman: I saw the original article in the paper, but perhaps you could bring us up to date. It says, "Manhunt ends." Did they find him, and is the woman all right?
Mr. Woods: Briefly, he kept her against her will and confined in a vehicle for approximately 11 or 12 hours and eventually gave himself up to police.
The woman is currently in hospital with severe facial trauma and will need to undergo reconstructive surgery, as she was severely beaten. She will be off work for several months.
An article appeared in the newspaper yesterday to the effect that other chiropractors would take her clients until such time as she can return to work. This was not a simple assault case; it was a significant assault causing bodily harm.
Senator Oliver: One of the problems with this area in general is a lack of good data and statistics. Can you tell me how the RCMP keeps records and statistics on this type of crime? In other words, does your department have statistics that might help us in our study of the frequency of crimes of this nature? That is my first question.
My second question is unrelated. You said that a more pragmatic approach is needed in drafting this kind of legislation and dealing with this type of problem. You also said that previous convictions for similar offences should be taken into consideration. How can you do that if the person received an absolute discharge and no longer has a criminal record?
Mr. Woods: That is where the problem lies, in that this kind of crime must be recognized as more than a nuisance complaint. However, law enforcement authorities may be slow in developing that kind of an attitude.
It is not unlike some of the sexual offences, such as exposing oneself or obscene phone calls, which are often considered nuisance complaints. They are not documented to the extent that they should be. These types of offenders often escalate their behaviour to more serious offences and stalkers are in that category.
When someone has an absolute discharge, or, to take it a step further, receives a pardon, then that type of offence is not on their record; therefore, it is not available for the court to consider. I have not given much thought to this, but I am of the view that some of these types of offences, particularly sexually related ones -- and often stalking offences are sexually related -- should never be expunged from a person's record. Frequently, these people will offend all their lives. It is a question of whether or not they are caught that will determine if the pardon is provided.
The Chairman: I point out, Mr. Woods, that this committee is likely to be spending a great deal of time in the next week or two discussing that particular issue in the context of Bill C-69.
Mr. Woods: In relation to your first question, I do not have the statistics, but I will make every effort to get them. Very often, we will bring in researchers, and only at that point are the statistics for these kinds of crimes examined and published. I will look into that and advise the committee.
Senator Oliver: Would that include the number and type of complaints that you receive, whether someone has been followed or has received threatening letters? Would it be in that kind of detail?
Mr. Woods: Yes, but that would be relative to the RCMP only. It would be a monumental task to go to Toronto Metro, for instance, or the OPP. However, within our own jurisdiction, I should be able to get some reasonable information.
Senator Oliver: That kind of data would be very useful.
Senator Beaudoin: I was impressed by your suggestion that we should have mandatory psychiatric examinations in some cases. Could it be done by an amendment to the bill, or do you have something else in mind?
Mr. Woods: I did not read in the current draft anything that relates to mandatory psychiatric assessment and treatment. Before we can provide or dictate mandatory treatment, there must be mandatory assessment by someone independent of the Crown and the defence, who can provide an objective view of that person's mental health. After that assessment, the mandatory treatment would follow.
I am not a psychiatrist, but we do work with a forensic psychiatrist by the name of Peter Collins, who is affiliated with the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry. The committee may wish to speak to him on the issues of treatment and the likelihood of its success.
Senator Beaudoin: I emphasize the word "mandatory" because it is very important. We have heard from many witnesses, some of whom are in favour of light sentences, while others favour heavy sentences. It is probably quite debatable. However, the question of a psychiatric examination should be dealt with. In some cases, at least, it should be mandatory. Is that what you have in mind?
Mr. Woods: Yes, absolutely. We must keep in mind that 85 per cent of the cases generally involve someone who, by society's standards, is reasonably healthy mentally.
That is not to say they do not have personality disorders. However, that is not the same as a delusional or psychotic person who has no likelihood of success in life unless treated in a sustainable, monitored program in a very controlled environment.
That type of individual cannot be treated initially as an outpatient and allowed to walk the streets. I do not think we can depend on that kind of patient to stay within the guidelines of any legal provisions.
Senator Andreychuk: I wanted to follow up on the area of psychiatric examination.
I thought that where anyone appears before a court, and there are reasonable grounds to believe there is some mental condition that would preclude that person from continuing in the court process, that a psychiatric examination could be ordered.
Mr. Woods: Yes, psychiatric evaluations are performed, but I think the problem is the mandatory aspect. With respect to these types of cases, because of their nature, the recidivism rate, and a possible 15 per cent chance of severe mental illness, it should not be an option. It should be mandatory and automatic. Where a stalker is involved, there should be an assessment.
Senator Andreychuk: You are saying that the discretion should be taken away from the judge.
Mr. Woods: Yes.
Senator Andreychuk: In my jurisdiction, Saskatchewan, The Mental Health Act is used. Some onus is put on people who know a stalker and know his obsessive nature, as occurs in many marital situations. As you say, it starts out as a nuisance, but then it escalates. If you believe that such a person is a threat to himself or to others, is ordering them into psychiatric treatment an option?
Mr. Woods: That exists in most other provinces too. There is always that option under the Mental Health Act.
I am not a psychiatrist, but my experience as a police officer is that this option is used judiciously. For the most part, the courts choose other ways of dealing with the situation. I do not think that is a way to solve the problem.
Senator Andreychuk: Is it because the police and the judges are not aware of the severity of the problem?
Mr. Woods: I think we are becoming more aware of it. Only recently has there been a concerted effort and an interdisciplinary approach to dealing with this issue. Only now do we see the Crown, the Justice department, the police and medical people working together.
We have made huge strides in this regard in the last five years. Before that, everyone did their own thing. Police officers said they did not need doctors, doctors wondered why police officers were sticking their noses into this, and social workers were caught in the middle. We can only deal with this through a concerted and coordinated effort amongst interdisciplinary areas such as social work, human resources, medicine, law enforcement, the courts, and the Crown.
The Crown and the police are now working closely with the medical community. Dr. Peter Collins provides my branch with advice in this vein, as well as with respect to sex offenders. There is a much closer relationship and I expect the trend towards some of the approaches that we are discussing this morning to continue.
Senator Andreychuk: You said that a majority or many police officers believe in stiffer sentences. Why? That was my experience 20 or 30 years ago, but I have since seen police officers look to alternative methods for solving some of the problems for which we traditionally turn exclusively to the courts.
Mr. Woods: I qualified that by saying they are supportive of stiffer sentences for repeat offenders, or those who have shown through their criminal history an inability to be rehabilitated. Again, I am going from my personal knowledge and I do not know many police officers who would disagree with that statement.
Senator Grafstein: I want to take up a theme that Senator Andreychuk has raised with respect to an alternate mechanism for dealing with these problems. Before I do that, I wish to revisit the statistics you say you do have. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you said that around 15 per cent of stalking problems emanate from people who have a chronic mental disability.
Mr. Woods: Yes, from lower to more severe levels.
Senator Grafstein: In effect, they have been assessed as having a chronic mental problem.
Mr. Woods: Yes.
Senator Grafstein: You then said that 85 per cent are people who do not fall within that category, but who do have some episodic mental problems, thus falling below a normative standard.
Mr. Woods: Absolutely. That would include depression, alcohol and drug abuse, and other categories.
Senator Grafstein: Let us take that as a benchmark, although I am not sure those numbers are accurate because I have heard others. It tends to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as to where you draw the line. There may be a higher level of chronic disability on the streets in some cities than in others. For the moment, however, let us focus on those who fall below a normative standard, where the mental state could be deemed to be a psychiatric problem as opposed to an episodic mood swing.
Are the courts, as presently constituted, capable of making the assessment and dealing with the treatment, the penalty, and the rehabilitation?
You made one statement that astounded me. In your view, there is no successful rehabilitation, and the only answer is incarceration, that is, stiffer sentences. That is a very strong statement.
Mr. Woods: That comment was made in the context of my belief that stiffer sentences are applicable in situations where we are dealing with repeat offenders.
It is important to understand that some of these psychopathic types exhibit absolutely no remorse. When they repeatedly show no remorse and no interest in participating in any kind of program within the correctional system, it tells me this person has gone beyond rehabilitation.
Again, I am speaking in layman's terms, but I have worked as a police officer for 27 years. Whether we like it or not, we must understand that a significant number of criminals are criminals from the time they can speak until the time they reach the grave. That is a societal problem, but from the law enforcement point of view, we have to sometimes set a guideline that these people must be taken off the street at some point.
Senator Grafstein: I accept that. I am merely attempting to deal with a cluster of problems. You said that a number of individuals within that 15 per cent of the chronically mentally disabled are immune to any treatment because they are too far gone. I am not quarrelling with that.
Mr. Woods: When I use the term "institutionalize," or the phrase "incarcerated for as long as possible," I am talking more about the criminal mind, such as a psychopath. I am not talking about mental rehabilitation; I am talking about criminal rehabilitation.
Senator Grafstein: With regard to that 85/15 split, what percentage of the 15 per cent would you say are in the chronic class? In other words, they are immune to treatment. They have to be taken off the streets and isolated and incarcerated because they present too high a threat to society to be allowed to exercise any freedom of action. What percentage would be in that category?
Mr. Woods: I would feel very uncomfortable answering that question. It would be more appropriately answered by Dr. Peter Collins.
Senator Grafstein: Are those statistics available?
We are being asked to legislate and to apply more severe penalties to a particular area of criminal conduct. I am open to doing that if I feel that the level of activity in this category is such that it poses a serious threat to society. In order for us to come to that conclusion, we need a statistical analysis to help determine whether we should change the system by moving the criminal line further along than is currently established.
I believe the essential thing is to be very careful to ensure that we are criminalizing that which should be criminalized, as opposed to that which should be treated. To my mind, that is the question mark.
Thus I come to the conclusion, since you say that police forces are moving in this direction, that perhaps the criminal justice system is not a satisfactory avenue for sorting out the differences in conduct and then tracking those who should be dealt with by the system, while maintaining a different level of assessment and response for those who should not. You suggested that in the majority of cases, offenders are either chronically or episodically mentally disabled.
Mr. Woods: I think an argument can be made that anyone who is continuously involved in violent crime has some kind of personality disorder or mental problem.
Senator Grafstein: I have no problem with that.
Mr. Woods: I may not have expressed myself clearly this morning, but I am very much in favour of the kind of thing that you are talking about, senator. There has to be a distinction made between the criminal mind and the mentally sick mind, treating those who can be treated and jailing those who have to be incarcerated for varying degrees of time, depending upon the nature of the crime.
Senator Grafstein: The determination of that factor really relates to the first step, which is when the police are called in. The issue is, at the moment that person comes into contact with the forces of law, we happen to have an almost "one-stop shop," which is the magistrate's or lower court, at which our legislation is directed. What I hear you saying is that while there is a growing awareness in the police forces and the judiciary that this is a problem, what it really calls for is a more specialized, interdisciplinary approach to making that crucial initial assessment. From listening to your testimony, it strikes me that that is the key, to properly assess the person at the first occurrence, if you can, and then hope to have the appropriate track for dealing with him.
Mr. Woods: That is, a track that would best suit the person and society generally.
Senator Grafstein: Are you aware of any alternative mechanisms at the lower court levels in the United States where an interdisciplinary approach has been adopted? For instance, in Toronto we have specialized courts to deal with children. There is a growing feeling that when it comes to marital disputes relating to alimony, these are not really criminal matters, but should be dealt with in a quasi-legal manner. Are you familiar with any such courts dealing with stalking?
Mr. Woods: No, I am not, but that does not mean they do not exist.
Senator Grafstein: You mentioned that they have done some interesting work in California. Do they use alternative methodologies?
Mr. Woods: Not to my knowledge, no.
Senator Pépin: You suggested that once a stalker is released, if he cannot receive treatment, he should be placed in an appropriate institution. I thought that before an inmate was released, he had to appear before a board that analyzed whether or not he had had any treatment, whether he had followed it, and whether he was well enough to be sent back to the streets or to a halfway house, where I think they have to follow treatment. Were you saying that because you are not satisfied with what is going on right now or because more should be done?
I ask the question because I thought that most of these people have to go through treatment, and it is only if they are successful that they can return to society.
Mr. Woods: It is certainly not the case with sex offenders, and to my knowledge, not with stalking personalities. In fact a serious sex offender can enter a federal or provincial institution and refuse to have any treatment. The likelihood is they will serve out a longer term. However, they are released at some point. They are under no obligation to follow any treatment within the system.
Senator Pépin: I believe you said that the legislation should include a provision that they follow appropriate treatment or, if they have served their time, that they be sent to a specific institution instead of being released into society. Have I misunderstood you?
Mr. Woods: You are correct, and I will put it in very practical terms.
Say I am a stalker and erotomanic, for instance, and I have a problem. It is not unlike a physical medical problem. Unless you deal with it, it will get worse. If a person goes into an institution, whether for a sexual or a stalking offence, and refuses treatment, then I think there should be provisions in place to deal with that person. Until such time as that person successfully completes treatment, he should not be put back into society where he can continue to offend. We know that he will continue to offend. We know that certain offenders, depending on the type of offences they commit, will not just stop. In the same way, sex offenders do not wake up when they are 35 years old and say, "I think I will be a sex offender today," or "I think I will be a stalker today." This behaviour is motivated by fantasy for the most part and goes on for years and years. It does not stop or start just like that.
At some point, society has to dictate that people like that be appropriately treated medically before they are released. It should be an indeterminate sentence that relies on the person not only receiving the appropriate treatment, but completing it successfully. I do not think it is appropriate to treat someone, and at the end of a six-month period, have the doctor say to the guy, "We gave it a stab, but you are still a stalker and there is not much I can do about it," and then release him.
We have to understand that it is not like child abuse and some of these other issues. It is very easy to talk about. Talking to the victim of either a rapist or a stalker will help you understand that these men should not be released to be given an opportunity to harm more victims.
Senator Pépin: I agree. To what kind of institution could we send them?
Mr. Woods: I say "institutionalized" rather than "incarcerated" because if it is a mental disorder, they should be in an appropriate institution. I am uncomfortable discussing these things because I am not qualified in psychiatric or psychological clinical assessments.
Senator Bryden: It is my understanding that the real mark of a psychopath is that he is capable of fooling the system, sometimes for as long as 25 years. The real psychopath does not refuse the treatment. Rather, he does it very successfully, follows all the rules, and is a model prisoner. When his time for release arrives and he goes before the Parole Board, there is no evidence from the previous 15 years that this man has not been totally cured.
However, part of the pathology is that he genuinely believes that he is entirely capable of fooling the system. Therefore, unless the determination is made at the time of incarceration that the person is psychopathic and can never be cured, there is no way to avoid releasing people like that.
Mr. Woods: From Senator Grafstein's point, I take it that we are talking about mentally disordered people who are schizophrenic or psychotic. Most of the psychopaths who are stalkers are in that 85 per cent category. I personally do not include that in the area where a mental institution would be appropriate. Psychopathy is a personality disorder.
You are right on the money. These people manipulate the system. They have no remorse but can pretend to be remorseful. They are charming. Psychologists and psychiatrists interview these people and in the end we are not sure who interviewed whom. In my view, those people are non-rehabilitatable and should spend a long time in jail. I do not include them with the mentally disordered people about whom Senator Grafstein was speaking.
Senator Moore: Inspector Woods, do you think that a minimum sentence for repeat offenders would be helpful as a deterrent? Also, what are your thoughts on increasing maximum sentences?
Mr. Woods: Often, the criminals who make up the 85 per cent have an understanding of the consequences of their actions. However, not unlike other criminals, they are impulsive by nature. As much as I would like to say that stiffer sentences are better deterrents, it is more accurate to say that stiffer sentences keep criminals away from victims for a longer time.
When these people commit their crimes, they are not thinking of the consequences. The penalty could be a 100-year sentence and they would still commit impulsive, opportunistic types of crime. Stiffer sentences will keep victims and offenders separated for a longer period of time.
Senator Moore: Does that apply to establishing a minimum sentence for a second offence as well?
Mr. Woods: Absolutely. In fact in some states there are mandatory minimum sentences of, for example, two years for a first offence, three years for a second offence, et cetera.
However, in the penal system, there are a number of people who have committed offences regardless of the consequences because they are impulsive. Their crimes are often fantasy motivated and they do not consider the consequences.
The Chairman: Inspector Woods, in your handout there is a series of slides from the Los Angeles Police Department that deal with false victimization syndrome, hypothesized stalkers, and random target stalkers. I gather that false victimization syndrome is fairly rare and that is why you have not included some of these other categories.
Mr. Woods: As I stated, other researchers have developed different methods of classification. There are some in there that do not apply to Paul Bernardo, for instance. He is what I would call a "paraphilic" stalker. There was a practical reason behind his stalking. He was not necessarily stalking for the sake of it; he was stalking to find a victim. Probably most sexual predators stalk their victims, but that is not a criminal harassment issue. It is an issue of determining whether this victim is appropriate. They will follow the victim to ensure that the time is right and everything feels right. These people will often follow several potential victims before choosing the one they will assault. I call such a person a "paraphilic" stalker.
Those types of designations can be categorized within the three I talked about this morning. There is an overlap among the labels used for the same type of individuals.
I use the Los Angeles material at the Canadian Police College when I instruct investigators. It is the only research that includes a study of categories of stalkers, contains empirical evidence, and has validity. That is not to say that the others do not have some merit, it is just that there is not sufficient research behind them.
Dr. Peter Collins is in the midst of writing a book on stalkers in which he is categorizing them. We do not have the same number of celebrities in Canada as the United States, so that is not a huge phenomenon here. However, anyone who is in the limelight can become the victim of a stalker -- even senators, because your pictures are in the newspapers. That is the type of person that erotomaniacs will follow because they have the delusion that the target loves them. No matter what you do, you cannot convince them that you do not love them. They think you are just playing hard to get. That is the mentality. That person is not a criminal, but rather needs psychiatric help and can be treated.
Senator Grafstein: There is debate currently in the United States with respect to the Columbine massacre and its replicating effect. Do you think that movies and television shows have anything to do with intensifying a desire to become a stalker? Do you think the media has an impact on this? You have examined many of these cases. Is that a material element in this irrational behaviour?
Mr. Woods: It draws things to people's attention. For instance, shortly after the OC Transpo disaster, there were five or six cases of people either threatening or suspecting similar behaviour. It simply heightens awareness.
The worst thing is to have NBC Dateline at Columbine. That only generates Taber, Alberta situations. The people who do these things are often not the brightest individuals and get their ideas from elsewhere.
Similarly, after a series of rapes, we sometimes see cases of false allegation syndrome. The allegations reported in the media give others ideas about what to tell the police in order to appear as convincing victims.
More important than movies is over-coverage of tragic events by the media. That brings on numerous cases every time.
Senator Grafstein: We can all probably think of five or six movies in which the plot is about stalking. This could be a systemic problem and we should look at it to determine if that is one of the sources of this type of irrational behaviour.
Mr. Woods: It definitely heightens awareness in people who are prone to that kind of behaviour.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Inspector Woods. This has been a valuable session for us.
Senators, we will go in camera for a very short discussion of future business of the committee.
The committee continued in camera.