Correctional Service Canada
Symbol of the Government of Canada

Common menu bar links

Research Reports

Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

A Profile of Federal Offenders Designated as Dangerous Offenders or Serving Long-Term Supervision Orders

Table of Contents

A Profile of Federal Offenders Designated as Dangerous Offenders or Serving Long-Term Supervision Orders

This report is also available in French. Ce rapport est également disponible en français. Veuillez vous adresser à la direction de la recherche, Service Correctionnel du Canada, 340 avenue Laurier ouest, Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0P9. Should additional copies be required they can be obtained from the Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada, 340 Laurier Ave., West, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0P9.

Shelley Trevethan

Nicole Crutcher

John-Patrick Moore

Research Branch

Correctional Service of Canada

December 2002

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This project began in the fall of 2000, as a partnership between Correctional Service of Canada and the Department of Justice Canada. The research is the first phase of an evaluation of the impact of Bill C-55, enacted in 1997. Bill C-55 amended the Criminal Code in relation to "dangerous offenders". The Research Branch of Correctional Services of Canada agreed to prepare a profile of offenders designated as "dangerous offenders" (DO's) and those serving "long-term supervision orders" (LTSO's). In addition, a comparison of the profiles of dangerous offenders classified prior to Bill C-55 and those classified under the new provisions in Bill C-55 was undertaken.

Since January 1994, there have been a total of 274 offenders admitted to federal custody under the DO or LTSO designation. Of these, 179 were DO's and 95 were sentenced to a LTSO. In 1997, the number of DO's reached a high of 31. However, since then they have been fairly consistent, averaging about 24 per year. Since the enactment of the legislation in August 1997, the number of LTSO's has increased each year. Quebec and the Prairie region have larger proportions of LTSO's than DO's, while Ontario and the Pacific region have larger proportions of DO's than LTSO's. The Atlantic region had similar proportions of DO's and LTSO's.

The findings of this profile revealed a number of things. First, DO's had a greater number of previous adult convictions than LTSO's. In addition, a larger proportion of DO's than LTSO's were considered high risk to re-offend. Finally, DO's are classified as maximum security more often than LTSO's. These findings are not unexpected as DO's are, by definition, considered higher risk offenders.

DO's and LTSO's do not differ substantially in the type of offence for which they are incarcerated. The majority of both DO's and LTSO's had a current sexual offence, as well as previous sexual offences.

Unlike the general inmate population where only a small percentage of offenders victimize children, elderly or handicapped, large proportions of DO's and LTSO's had victimized children. Few offenders had victimized elderly or handicapped individuals. In comparison to LTSO's, DO's had a significantly larger proportion of female youth and female adult victims.

DO's caused more injury, both physically and psychologically, to their victims and were more likely to use a weapon or threaten violence than LTSO's.

Almost all DO's and LTSO were rated as high overall needs. However, with respect to the separate needs domains, DO's were rated higher need in the areas of employment, associates/social interaction, substance abuse, community functioning and attitude.

Part of this study also included a comparison between the pre-DO legislation group and the post-DO group. The main findings reveal that there were very few differences between the two groups. This was expected as the changes in the legislation were primarily procedurally based. The major differences indicated that the pre-DO group had, on the whole, greater needs than the post-DO group.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

 

This report is a result of a partnership between the Research Branch of Correctional Service of Canada and the Department of Justice Canada. The working group that guided this research, included: Suzanne Wallace-Capretta, Ivan Zinger, Doug Hoover, Dave Whellams (Justice Canada) and Shelley Trevethan (Correctional Service Canada).

The authors would also like to thank Sarah Johnson for providing an initial version of a coding manual, and for her assistance in the data input and analysis. We would also like to thank Douglas Turkington for data input and preparation of the database. Stan Daniels Healing Centre and Native Counselling Services of Alberta provided access to the Offender Management System and office space for the data input. For his examination of Crown files in order to differentiate offenders designated under Bill C-55, we thank Doug Hoover.

Finally, we would like to thank the following people for their assistance: Amey Bell, Jim Bonta, and Sarah Auger.

 

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Acknowledgements

Table of Contents

List of Figures

List of Tables

Introduction

Legislation

Major Findings of Past Research

Method

Subjects

Procedure

Findings

DO and LTSO Comparison

Pre-DO/Post-DO Comparisons

Summary

References

Appendix A: Data Coding Manual

Appendix B: Tables

List of Figures

Figure 1.DO and LTSO Designations by Year

Figure 2.Current Regional Distribution

Figure 3.DO and LTSO Initial Custody Rating

Figure 4.Demographic Characteristics

Figure 5.Current Convictions

Figure 6.Previous Adult Convictions

Figure 7.Current Offence Type

Figure 8.Some or Considerable Need

Figure 9.Sentencing Region

Figure 10.High Needs for Pre- and Post-DOs

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.Number of Dangerous Offenders and Offenders Serving Long-Term Supervision Orders

Table 2.Regional Distribution of DO's and LTSO's

Table 3.Security Level

Table 4.Demographic Characteristics

Table 5.Number of Current and Previous Convictions

Table 6.Offences Committed by DO's and LTSO's

Table 7.Sexual Offences Committed by DO's and LTSO's

Table 8.Length of LTSO's in the Community

Table 9.Victims of DO's and LTSO's - number and type of victims

Table 10.Victims of DO's and LTSO's - sex and age

Table 11.Use of Weapons

Table 12.Injury

Table 13.Risk and Need

INTRODUCTION

 

This project began in the fall of 2000, as a partnership between the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and the Department of Justice Canada. The research is the first phase of an evaluation of the impact of Bill C-55, enacted in 1997. Bill C-55 amended Part XXIV of the Criminal Code in relation to "dangerous offenders". The Research Branch of CSC agreed to prepare a profile of offenders designated as "dangerous offenders" (DO's) and those serving "long-term supervision orders" (LTSO's). In addition, a comparison of the profiles of dangerous offenders classified prior to Bill C-55 and those classified under the new provisions in Bill C-55 was undertaken. The results of the profile and comparison are outlined in this report.

Prior to delving into the subject matter, it is important to clarify some of the terminology that will be used in this report. A DO is an offender who has met the criteria set out by section 753 of the Criminal Code of Canada and been sentenced to an indeterminate period of incarceration under the current legislation. A LTSO is a community supervision tool that judges can impose on an offender as specified by section 753.1 of the Criminal Code. It allows for up to ten years of supervision after the offender completes his/her custodial sentence. According to Motiuk (2001), this designation was created in order to deal with those who commit sexual offences, particularly against children.

It is important to note that the term "long-term offender" (LTO) within Correctional Service Canada differs from the Criminal Code definition of a "long-term offender" (LTO). Within CSC, LTO's refer to a group of offenders serving life sentences, indeterminate sentences and those serving determinate sentences of 10 years or greater. The Criminal Code, as amended by C-55, however uses the term "Long Term Offender" to refer to the specific class of offenders who have been so designated by a judge under s. 753.1 of a Part XXIV application, and the term "Long Term Supervision Order" to refer to the actual sentence meted out by the sentencing judge in a s. 753.1 decision. The term "Long-term Supervision Order" (LTSO), however, is used internally by CSC to refer to a LTO designation under Part XXIV of the Criminal Code. For the purposes of this report, internal CSC designations will be used, and the Criminal Code designation under a Part XXIV application will be referred to as a "LTSO". It is very important to distinguish between these two terms as they refer to very different concepts.

In Canada, approximately 30% of the offenders in federal institutions are considered long-term offenders (Motiuk & Nafekh, 2000). Of these almost 4,000 long-term offenders, 62% are serving life sentences, 32% are serving sentences of 10 years or more, and 6% are serving indeterminate sentences. This study focuses on this 6% (or approximately 270 offenders) which are classified as DO's, as well as those classified as serving LTSO's.

Over the years, there has been ongoing public concern about the danger that high-risk violent offenders pose to public safety. The use of indeterminate sentences has been one approach used by the government to minimize the risk posed by such offenders. One form of indeterminate sentence is the finding by the court that the defendant is a dangerous offender. The DO designation is predominantly used with offenders who have shown a history of violent crimes, including sexual offences.

Legislation

 

DO legislation has been in effect in Canada for over fifty years in some form or another. The history of this type of legislation began in 1947 with the Habitual Criminals law. This law was enacted to deal with persons charged with an indictable offence on three separate occasions and who were considered to be leading a persistent criminal life. Those offenders found to be "habitual criminals" were sentenced to an indeterminate period of incarceration. The law specifically referred to the imposition of an indeterminate sentence as a means of preventive detention and this term was found in DO legislation until 1977.

In 1948, the Criminal Sexual Psychopath legislation was implemented for persons convicted of attempted or actual assault, rape, or carnal knowledge. In 1953 the legislation was amended to include buggery, bestiality, or gross indecency to the list of offences to which the legislation could be applied. According to the law, criminal sexual psychopaths showed a lack of power to control their sexual impulses and thus presented a further risk to others. The Criminal Sexual Psychopath provisions combined an indeterminate sentence with a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more for the offence of which the offender was convicted. The legislation was problematic, so in 1958, a Royal Commission under Justice McRuer addressed the numerous criticisms of the criminal sexual psychopath provisions. The Commission's report resulted in the Criminal Sexual Psychopath provisions being repealed and the enactment of the Dangerous Sexual Offender law in 1960. The amendments intended to broaden dangerous sexual offender applications by allowing dangerous sexual offender hearings to be held for individuals who had only one conviction but who appeared highly dangerous based on their personal history and the circumstances of their offence (Petrunik, 1994). Under the new definition, a dangerous sexual offender's lack of power to control his/her sexual impulses was changed to his/her failure to do so. The new provisions mandated that the only sentence a dangerous offender would receive was an indeterminate one.

The Ouimet Report (Canadian Committee on Corrections, 1969) criticized the dangerous sexual offender legislation in respect to regional disparities in its application, its determination of an individual's dangerousness on the basis of a brief psychiatric interview, its inclusion of persons who were not physically dangerous, and the failure to include dangerous non-sexual offenders. In 1974, the Senate Committee re-affirmed the Ouimet recommendation to repeal both the Habitual Criminals and Dangerous Sexual Offender provisions. Proposals to reform the Dangerous Sexual Offender legislation continued, and in 1977, Bill C-51 under the Criminal Law Amendment Act repealed all preventive detention measures (formerly Part XXI) and enacted the new Part XXIV of the Criminal Code, the Dangerous Offender provisions.

This new Dangerous Offender provision provided that a person may be designated a dangerous offender for "serious personal injury offences", including both sexual and non-sexual offences. According to the new procedure, a finding that the defendant is a dangerous offender represented a threat to other persons, demonstrated by a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour, and prevention of his/her future behaviour was unlikely. A person found to be a dangerous offender was sentenced to either an indeterminate or determinate period of incarceration in lieu of any other sentence for which the offender had been given. This section of the Criminal Code remained essentially unchanged until 1997.

In August 1997, Bill C-55 amended the Criminal Code relating to dangerous offenders. Bill C-55 made the following amendments to the Criminal Code:

  • Amended the "dangerous offender" (DO) designation to streamline the procedure making it more efficient;
  • Created the new designation of "Long Term Offender" and a new "long-term supervision order" that begins upon the completion of the custodial sentence and can be up to 10 years in length. It provides a complementary option to the DO designation and focuses on offenders not captured by the DO provisions, but who still present a substantial risk to reoffend;
  • Enacted section 810.2 recognizance orders for individuals who present a danger of committing a "serious personal injury" offence;
  • Allows the prosecution a six month window after the conviction has been incurred and sentence has been meted out to make a DO application;
  • Requires one expert witness (e.g., psychiatrist or psychologist) that must give evidence at a DO application; and
  • Requires an initial parole review for a DO after seven years, and every two years thereafter.

 

Dangerous offender legislation is contained in Section 753 of the Criminal Code of Canada:

  1. The court may, on application made under this Part following the filing of an assessment report... find the offender to be a dangerous offender if it is satisfied:
  1. that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence... and the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons on the basis of evidence establishing:
  1. a pattern of repetitive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a failure to restrain his or her behaviour and a likelihood of causing death or injury to other persons, or inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons, through failure in the future to restrain his or her behaviour,
  2. a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a substantial degree of indifference on the part of the offender respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to other persons of his or her behaviour, or
  3. any behaviour by the offender, associated with the offence for which he or she has been convicted, that is of such a brutal nature as to compel the conclusion that the offender's behaviour in the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint; or
  1. that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence... and the offender, by his or her conduct in any sexual manner including that involved in the commission of the offence for which he or she has been convicted, has shown a failure to control his or her sexual impulses and a likelihood of causing injury, pain or other evil to other persons through failure in the future to control his or her sexual impulses.

 

  1. If the court finds an offender to be a dangerous offender, it shall impose a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period.

A DO application can be made up to six months after the conviction and sentence has been entered, providing the Crown provides notice of the intent to proceed with a DO application and show that the evidence required for the application was not reasonably available at that time. Furthermore, according to the new legislation, courts no longer have the discretion to sentence a DO to a determinate period of incarceration. However, according to Eaves, Douglas, Webster, Ogloff and Hart (2000), the indeterminate sentence may be open to judicial discretion, but this aspect of the legislation has not yet been ruled on. The DO may not have his/her file reviewed by the National Parole Board until seven years after the sentence commencement date for the index offence.

Long-term offender legislation is in Section 753.1:

 

  1. The court may, on application made under this Part following the filing of an assessment report... find an offender to be a long-term offender if it is satisfied:
  1. it would be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more for the offence for which the offender has been convicted;
  2. there is a substantial risk that the offender will re-offend; and
  3. there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community.

(3) . If the court finds an offender to be a long-term offender, it shall:

  1. impose a sentence for the offence for which the offender has been convicted, which sentence must be a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years; and
  2. order the offender to be supervised in the community, for a period not exceeding ten years.

 

In this report, offenders designated under this legislation are referred to as those serving "long-term supervision orders" (LTSO's).

According to the new legislation, sentences imposed for DO's and LTSO's differ. A DO receives an indeterminate sentence, whereas an offender given a LTSO receives a determinate sentence. The LTSO sentence will also include an order of extended supervision in the community for up to 10 years in length. Most LTSO designations to date have been against sex offenders who did not meet the criteria of the dangerous offender designation (Correctional Service Canada, 2000a). A LTSO application may be made if the offender has a conviction of an offence listed in s. 753.1 (2)(a) of the Criminal Code: sexual interference (s. 151), invitation to sexual touching (s. 152), sexual exploitation (s. 153), exposure (s. 173(2)), sexual assault (s. 271), sexual assault with a weapon (s. 272) and aggravated sexual assault (s. 273). The offender may also have "engaged in serious conduct of a sexual nature in the commission of another offence of which the offender has been convicted" (s. 753.1 (2)(a)). One of the key elements of a LTSO finding is that, while the offender has been convicted of the previously listed offences, "there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community" (s.753.1(1)(c)). Therefore, in LTSO designations, the key issues surround the treatability and community risk management of the offender.

Major Findings of Past Research

To date, few studies have provided descriptions of the DO population in Canada. One of the earliest reports is a preliminary examination of the first 32 offenders declared Dangerous Offenders from 1977 through to March 1983 (Solicitor General Canada, 1983). In 1986, Jakimiec, Porporino, Addario and Webster described 50 offenders incarcerated in federal institutions who were designated as DO's between 1977 and 1985. In 1993, a working group on high-risk offenders provided a statistical profile of 121 DO's under federal jurisdiction (Pepino, Aubut, Logar, deVilliers, Louis & Carvery, 1993). Bonta, Harris, Zinger and Carriere (1996) reviewed penitentiary and court files of 64 DO's from Ontario and British Columbia and compared them to another high-risk violent group of offenders who were detention failures. Zanatta (1996) compared 45 DO's in the Pacific region to a comparison group of inmates incarcerated for serious personal injury offences. Johnson (1999) provided a description of the first 19 offenders serving LTSO's following the enactment of Bill C-55. Finally, Motiuk and Nafekh (2000) provided a profile of long-term offenders, including comparisons of those serving sentences of 10 years or more.

Previous research has found the vast majority of DO's to be sex offenders, despite the 1977 DO provisions that widened the applicability of the law beyond dangerous sex offenders. For example, Jakimiec et al. (1986) found that 78% of dangerous offenders were convicted of sexual offences as their index offence. Pepino et al. (1993) found that the major admitting offence for about one-half of DO's was a sex offence, and 90% had a previous conviction of sexual offence. Bonta et al. (1996) found 92% of the DO's from Ontario and British Columbia had a sexual offence as their index offence. Zanatta (1996) found 89% of DO's in the Pacific region were convicted of a sexual offence compared to 44% of a control group of inmates who committed serious personal injury offences. Motiuk and Nafekh (2000) found that inmates serving indeterminate sentences are over-represented by sex offenders. This also appears to be the case for LTSO's. Although Johnson's (1999) study is only based on 19 offenders, it found that 84% of the LTSO's were sex offenders.

The available research has also found that the DO population does not differ substantially from other offenders held for serious offences in Canadian penitentiaries on a number of factors. Bonta et al. (1996) found similar demographic characteristics among DO's and those who were detention failures, in terms of IQ, marital status, education and employment. They also found similarities in terms of criminal histories, risk of recidivism and antisocial personality. Similarly, Zanatta (1996) found no significant differences between DO's and those who committed serious personal injuries in ethnic origin, years of education, employment status, age when committed most recent offence, or sex. Motiuk and Nafekh (2000) found no statistical differences between indeterminate offenders and other long-term offenders in terms of needs at admission. These similarities are what would be expected. The only area where differences may be expected is criminal history.

According to Bonta et al. (1996), DO sex offenders appear more serious than a control group of sex offenders who were detention failures. These offenders also had more victims and showed more signs of brutality. Motiuk and Nafekh (2000) found significant differences between indeterminate offenders and other long-term offenders (those serving life sentences or 10 years or more) in terms of young offender histories.

The vast majority of DO's and LTSO's have previously served terms of incarceration. Motiuk and Nafekh (2000) found that 93% of indeterminate offenders had previous convictions and 63% had served prior federal terms of incarceration. Johnson (1999) also found that a large percentage (71%) of LTSO's had five or more previous convictions. Bonta et al. (1996) found similar results, 88% of the DO's that they looked at had served prior terms of incarceration. Similarily, Pepino et al. (1993) found that 72% of DO's had served one or more previous federal incarcerations. These findings are expected as Bill C-55 specified that those offenders declared a DO or given a LTSO should have a pattern of repetitive offending behaviour.

Other findings indicated that the majority of DO's are being held in either protective custody or segregation (Jakimiec et al., 1986). This is likely due to the fact that the majority of DO's either pose a danger to others, including fellow inmates, or other inmates pose a danger to them.

The studies described above differ in focus, as well as who is examined. Furthermore, due to changes in the legislation over the years, it would be expected that the results may differ among studies. As noted earlier, although legislation relating to dangerous or high-risk offenders has been in existence for over 50 years, the legislation relating to LTSO's is quite recent. Therefore, until now, the number of offenders classified as LTSO's has been too small for any in-depth analysis. In order to examine the effects of Bill C-55, a profile of DO's and those serving LTSO's is necessary.

The purpose of the present study is to provide a profile of offenders designated as DO's and LTSO's under Bill C-55. In addition, a comparison of DO's designated three years prior to the new legislation (1994) and those who have since been designated was conducted. Bill C-55 has been in place for five years, therefore, there should be a large enough number of DO's and LTSO's incarcerated to provide an in-depth profile. The major research questions for the study were:

  1. What are the characteristics of DO's and those serving LTSO's in Canadian federal prisons?

  • An examination of demographic characteristics, current offence, criminal history, victims, risk, needs, etc.

 

The purpose of looking at the characteristics is to profile DO's and those serving LTSO's who are in federal prisons. This will also aid correctional case managers in identifying the general need areas of these populations.

  1. How do DO's in general and those serving LTSO's differ?

  • Examine the differences in terms of demographic characteristics, previous and current offences, victims, risk and needs.

 

The DO designation was intended for those offenders who have a violent and extensive criminal history and are at high risk for criminal offending. Therefore, DO's and LTSO's should differ significantly on these variables. The two groups should also differ significantly, with DO's having greater needs and be a greater risk.

  1. How do DO's classified under the new provisions in Bill C-55 differ from those classified in the three years prior to Bill C-55?

  • Examine differences in terms of demographic characteristics, previous and current offences, victims, risks and needs.

 

Given that the changes to the DO legislation were, for the most part, procedurally based, differences between the two groups (pre-Bill C-55 and post-Bill C-55) would not be expected. The legislation did not change the wording as to the type of offender who would be eligible for designation or the establishing criteria (for example, pattern of behaviour, failure to control behaviour). Therefore, any differences between the pre-and post groups may indicate that there has been a shift in the application of the legislation.

 

METHOD

 

The project involved preparing a profile of federal offenders designated as "dangerous offenders" (DO's) and those serving "long-term supervision orders" (LTSO's). In order to gather the necessary information it was necessary to access offender data from the "Offender Management System" (OMS) of Correctional Service Canada. It should be noted that this analysis is restricted only to successful DO and LTSO applications and does not include applications that were reversed on appeal or were refused at application by the judges.

Subjects

The subjects for this study consisted of the entire population of DO offenders with the sentence commencement date between January 1, 1994 and June 30, 2001. In addition, all offenders serving LTSO's from the enactment of the legislation (August 1, 1997) through to June 30, 2001 were included. The total number of subjects included 179 dangerous offenders and 95 offenders serving long-term supervision orders.

Procedure

A working group was established, including staff from Correctional Service of Canada and the Department of Justice Canada, to discuss the evaluation of Bill C-55. It was agreed that as a first phase, the Research Branch of CSC would prepare a profile of offenders designated as DO's and LTSO's. In addition, a comparison of the profiles of DO's classified prior to, and following, Bill C-55 would be undertaken.

As a first step in this project, the working group discussed what information should be addressed in the profile and what data were available. It was initially planned to gather offender data from a pre-established database of federal offenders. However, following an initial examination of the available variables and discussions with the working group regarding what information was required, it was decided to conduct a full review of offender case files using the OMS. This involved accessing each offender's file individually and coding the data with the use of a coding manual.

CSC's Offender Intake Assessment (OIA) process collects and stores information on each federal offender's criminal and mental health background, social situation and education, factors relevant to determining criminal risk (such as number, variety of convictions and previous exposure, response to youth and adult corrections) and factors relevant to identifying offender needs (such as employment history, family background, criminal associations, addictions, attitudes). While the results help determine institutional placement and correctional plans, a distribution of selected criminal history and case need variables can result in a comprehensive profile of the federal offender population.

A coding manual developed by Johnson (1999) for LTSO's was used as a starting point to develop a coding manual for this project. The revised manual included information relevant to DO's, as well as other information agreed upon by the working group. A draft coding manual was reviewed by the working group and a pilot test was conducted on a few offender files to examine what data could reliably be obtained. The coding manual included information on: demographic characteristics; current offence; criminal history; risk and needs; and any releases and re-admissions (see Appendix A).

A list of all DO's that had their sentence commencement date between January 1994 and June 30, 2001 was developed from the OMS. Similarly, a list of all LTSO's was developed from the enactment of the new legislation on August 1, 1997 to June 30, 2001. Although the sentence commencement date is available from offender's files, the OMS does not differentiate those designated under the old and new legislation. Therefore, to determine which offenders were designated as DO's under Bill C-55, a representative from Justice Canada conducted a file search of Crown files from August 1997 onwards. A comparison was made from the OMS list and the Crown file list. Where this information could not be reliably determined, the implementation date of August 1, 1997 was used as the cut-off date. That is, those offenders with the sentence commencement date prior to August 1, 1997 would be considered pre Bill C-55 and those with a sentence commencing after August 1, 1997 were considered the post group.

There were a small number of offenders that could have what is called "hybrid" cases. In these cases, various aspects of their case, whether it is the date of the criminal act, conviction date or sentence commencement date, fall on different sides of the pre/post cut-off date. For example, the offence date was prior to August 1, 1997 yet the conviction and sentencing date occurred after the enactment of the legislation. In some of these cases, the sentencing judges used aspects of both the pre and post legislation in sentencing of the offender.

As with all the offenders included in this study, the inclusion in the pre/post group hinged on the sentence commencement date. As we move further from the date of enactment there will obviously be fewer and fewer offenders with an offence date pre-August 1, 1997, and eventually, all DO's will be sentenced under the post-C-55 substantive sentencing provisions.

A coder examined each offender's file on the OMS to find the information contained in the coding manual. The data were input and analyzed using SAS.

FINDINGS

DO and LTSO Comparison

Since January 1994, there have been a total of 274 offenders admitted to federal custody under the designations "dangerous offender" (DO) or "long-term supervision order" (LTSO). Of these, 179 were DO's and 95 were sentenced to a LTSO. As indicated in Figure 1, the number of DO's designated each year has varied each year with a low of 17 in 1995 and a high of 31 in 1997. The average across the seven and one-half years is about 24 designations per year. There were 15 DO's designated in the first half of 2001 alone (also see Table 1).

Figure 1.DO and LTSO Designations by Year1

Since the enactment of the legislation in August 1997, the number of LTSO's has increased each year. There were 17 LTSO's in 1998, 25 in 1999 and 26 in 2000. In fact, the number of LTSO's designated in the first six months of 2001 is already 23, bringing the total number of LTSO's designated between August 1, 1997 and June 30, 2001 to 95 (also see Table 1). Given the number of LTSO's already designated in the first half of 2001, it is probable that the number of LTSO's designated this year will surpass that of previous years.

It should be noted that some LTSO's started out as DO applicants. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to determine the exact number. At any time during a DO hearing, the Crown can convert the application to a LTSO. Also, a judge may, after hearing sentencing arguments for a DO application, turn the application down and instead invoke a LTSO. Some of this information was available on OMS, but the files were not consistent enough to draw any valid or reliable conclusions. Therefore, the only way of determining the number of LTSO's that originally had a DO application made would be to go to the actual application transcripts for each case. Given the extensive resources it would take to fully investigate the issue, this avenue was not pursued.

The distributions of DO's and LTSO's by region demonstrate some interesting differences. The largest proportion of Canada's DO's are currently in Ontario and the Pacific region, whereas the largest proportion of LTSO's are in Quebec and the Prairie region. As illustrated in Figure 2, the Quebec and Prairie regions have larger proportions of LTSO's than DO's (28% versus 8%; 26% versus 19%). However, the Ontario and Pacific regions have larger proportions of DO's than LTSO's (38% versus 23%; 28% versus 14%). The Atlantic region had similar proportions of DO's and LTSO's (7% and 8%, respectively). Inmates could be moved to a particular region for programming purposes, however, very similar distributions are found when the region of sentencing is examined (see Table 2).

 

Figure 2.Current Regional Distribution

It is interesting to compare the DO and LTSO distributions to the distribution of the general inmate population (Correctional Service Canada, 2000b). The regional distribution for the general population is similar to the LTSO distribution, but not the DO distribution. The Quebec and Prairie regions are incarcerating smaller proportions of DO's than may be expected given the general inmate population (8% versus 26%; 19% versus 25%). Conversely, the proportions of DO's that have been designated in the Ontario and Pacific regions are greater than would be expected given the general inmate population (38% versus 27%; 28% versus 14%).

Once a DO or LTSO has been designated, an initial level of security is assessed using the Custody Rating Scale (CRS). This does not mean that the offender stays at the original placement level as behaviour or other factors inside the facility may dictate that the offender be moved. As illustrated in Figure 3, the largest proportions of both DO's and LTSO's were initially classified as medium security. However, a larger proportion of DO's than LTSO's were classified as maximum security (49% versus 13%), while a larger proportion of LTSO's were classified as medium (61% versus 50%) and minimum security (26% versus 1%) (also see Table 3). This finding is expected as DO's are, by definition, considered higher risk offenders.

 

Figure 3.DO and LTSO Initial Custody Rating

 

Table 3 also shows the current level of security for inmates. Once again, the largest proportion of both DO's and LTSO's are currently at the medium level of security (67% and 74%, respectively). However, a larger proportion of DO's are still classified as maximum security (31% versus 16%).

Offender Profile

Figure 4 and Table 4 demonstrate the socio-demographic characteristics of DO's and LTSO's. All DO's were male and only one LTSO was female. This differs from the general inmate population where 3% are female (Correctional Service Canada, 2000b). The largest proportions of both DO's and LTSO's were aged 35-44 at time of sentencing (42% and 30%, respectively), with an average age of 41 for DO's and 40 for LTSO's. This population is older than the general inmate population, where the average age at the time of admission was 33 years (Correctional Service Canada, 2000b). This is to be expected as DO's and LTSO's, by definition, have demonstrated a pattern of behaviour which is expressed over time.

Figure 4.Demographic Characteristics

A fairly large proportion of DO's and LTSO's were Aboriginal (23% and 17%, respectively). It would appear that the racial make-up of the DO and LTSO populations is similar to that among the general inmate population where 17% are Aboriginal (Correctional Service Canada, 2000b). Incidentally, it should be noted that this finding reflects the general problem of Aboriginal over-representation in the correctional system as Aboriginal people make up approximately 2% of the Canadian adult general population yet their proportions in the correctional system are more than eight times that number.

Similar to the general inmate population, the largest proportion of both DO's and LTSO's were single (50% and 51%, respectively). The largest proportion of DO's and LTSO's had a grade 9 education or less, with DO's having a significantly greater proportion of offenders with this level of educational attainment (59% versus 47%). Further, a larger proportion of DO's than LTSO's were unemployed at arrest (76% versus 61%). This finding is similar to the general population where 69% were unemployed at time of arrest (Correctional Service Canada, 2000b).

Offences

 

As illustrated in Figure 5, DO's and LTSO's had similar numbers of current convictions. The largest proportion of both DO's and LTSO's had between two and four current convictions (43% and 45%, respectively) (also see Table 5). Interestingly, this finding is similar to that of the general inmate population where 39% of the offenders have between two and four current convictions (Correctional Service Canada, 2000b). Few DO's and LTSO's had ten or more current convictions.

Figure 5.Current Convictions

Almost all DO's and LTSO's had at least one previous adult conviction (93% and 98%, respectively). However, as may be expected, DO's differed from LTSO's in terms of the number of previous adult convictions (see Figure 6). The largest proportion of DO's (45%) had 15 or more prior adult convictions compared to 26% of LTSO's. The largest proportion of LTSO's (28%) had between five and nine previous adult convictions (also see Table 5).

 

Figure 6.Previous Adult Convictions

 

It is interesting to note that 33% of DO's and 43% of LTSO's had never served a previous federal sentence (Table 5).

Figure 7 illustrates the current offence type for DO's and LTSO's (also see Table 6). It should be noted that offenders may be incarcerated for more than one offence type, therefore there may be double counting. DO's and LTSO's do not differ substantially in the type of offence for which they are currently incarcerated. Similar to other studies, the majority of DO's and LTSO's had a current sexual offence (85% and 91%, respectively). In contrast, only about one-eighth of the general inmate population have a current sexual offence (Correctional Service Canada, 2000b). Furthermore, 80% of DO's and 83% of LTSO's had previous sexual offences (see Table 6).

 

Figure 7.Current Offence Type

Of those DO's that did not have a current conviction for a sexual offence, 92% had a current conviction for another serious offence, such as assault or robbery. The remaining 8% without a current conviction for a sexual offence were convicted of other offences that did not include homicide, attempted murder, kidnapping, arson, use of a prohibited weapon or discharging a firearm. Of the LTSO's that did not have a current conviction for a sexual offence, all had a current conviction for a serious offence.

There were differences between DO's and LTSO's when examining convictions for kidnapping/forcible confinement. Larger proportions of DO's than LTSO's had current and previous convictions for forcible confinement or kidnapping (27% versus 13%; 28% versus 11%). This was the only significant difference between the two groups for offences. No LTSO's had previous convictions for homicide or attempted homicide and 1% had a current conviction for homicide. Few DO's had homicide or attempted murder as a previous conviction (2% and 3%, respectively) or as a current conviction (3% and 3%, respectively). This is not surprising because, according to the legislation, first and second degree murder, as the predicating offence, are exempt from DO or LTSO designations.

The specific type of sexual offence is presented in Table 7. Overall, 84% of DO's and 85% of LTSO's had a current offence of sexual assault. Similar proportions had previous sexual assaults (83% and 77%, respectively). A larger proportion of LTSO's than DO's had a current offence related to paedophilia (54% versus 41%). Few DO's and LTSO's had an incest offence (14% and 10%, respectively).

Offenders serving LTSO's had custodial sentences ranging from 182 to 5,478 days (6 months to 15 years) . The average aggregate sentence length was 1,747 days or a little more than 4˝ years (median 1,461 days or about 4 years). The aggregate sentence length for all inmates admitted to federal custody was slightly less than LTSO's (average 4.1 years; median 3 years) (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 2001). A LTSO may be released from federal custody on parole but it is only upon their warrant expiry date that the supervision order starts. This differs slightly from when an offender from the general population is released in that once the warrant expiry date has been reached, the offender is not under the care or control of CSC unless the sentencing judge had also included a term of probation. The long-term supervision orders in the community for LTSO's ranged from between 4 to 10 years with a mean of 8.4 years (see Table 8). The largest proportions of LTSO's in the community were for 10 years (62%).

Victims

Information on the number of current and previous victims can be seen in Table 9. Overall, DO's and LTSO's had similar numbers of current victims. The largest proportions of DO's and LTSO's had one victim (62% and 57%, respectively) and approximately one-third of DO's and LTSO's had three or more victims. For previous offences, a significantly greater proportion of LTSO's had one victim (34% versus 23%). As expected, in order to demonstrate a pattern of behaviour, most DO's and LTSO's had three or more previous victims (80% and 75%, respectively).

Unlike the general inmate population where only a small percentage of offenders victimized children, elderly or handicapped, a large proportion of DO's and LTSO's had victimized children (49% and 61%, respectively). However, when examining previous offences, a greater proportion of LTSO's than DO's had victimized children (68% versus 52%). Few offenders had victimized elderly or handicapped individuals. Similar results can be seen for past victims.

The largest proportions of DO's and LTSO's knew their victim. For current offences 70% of LTSO's and 62% of DO's knew their victim. For previous offences, 87% of LTSO's and 74% of DO's knew their victim.

Among DO's, the largest proportion of victims for their current offence were adult females (61%) (Table 10). A further 46% were female youth and 40% were female children. Substantially fewer victims were male. Among LTSO's, the largest proportion of victims were female children (44%), followed by female adults (36%) and male children (35%). In a comparison between DO's and LTSO's, DO's had a significantly larger proportion of female youth victims than LTSO's (46% versus 25%). Furthermore, DO's offended against adult females significantly more than LTSO's (61% versus 36%).

Weapons/Injury

Information on the use of weapons is contained in Table 11. The largest proportion of DO's and LTSO's used power/authority against the victim in the current offence (75% and 65%, respectively). Larger proportions of DO's than LTSO's used a weapon (40% versus 16%) and threats of violence (74% versus 49%) against the victim(s) in the current offence. Similar differences were found for previous offences. Among the general population of inmates, only 30% of offenders used power/authority against the victim, 52% used threats of violence, and 27% used a weapon (Correctional Service Canada, 2000b).

As expected, a larger proportion of DO's than LTSO's caused some kind of physical injury to the victim (see Table 12). DO's caused significantly more serious and minor injury to the victims of their current offences than LTSO's (29% versus 8%; 63% versus 36%). Similar results were found for previous offences. Very few DO's or LTSO's caused the death of their victim. Among the general inmate population, 30% caused a minor injury, 22% a serious injury and 17% caused death (Correctional Service Canada, 2000b).

In terms of psychological harm, similar proportions of DO's and LTSO's were reported to have caused serious and moderate psychological harm to their victims for their current offence (88% and 89%; 66% and 58%, respectively) (see Table 12). However, larger proportions of DO's than LTSO's were reported to have caused mild psychological harm to their victim(s) (68% versus 55%). Among the general inmate population, substantially fewer inmates were reported to have caused psychological harm to their victims. Similar proportions of inmates in the general population caused serious (37%), moderate (34%), and mild (33%) psychological harm (Correctional Service Canada, 2000b).

Criminal History

As noted earlier, the vast majority of DO's and LTSO's have demonstrated a pattern of offending, especially for sex offences. This is expected as one of the requirements for designating an offender as a DO or LTSO is the establishment of a pattern of behaviour. The average age of a DO for a first conviction is 22 years (median 19). The average age for a LTSO's first conviction is 25 years (median 20). Furthermore, the average age for a DO's first custodial sentence is 24 years (median 20) while the average for a LTSO is 27 years (median 22). Given that the average age for the DO and LTSO convictions is 41 and 40 years, respectively, it appears as though the pattern of behaviour takes some time to develop or escalate.

In terms of criminal history, 57% of LTSO's and 67% of DO's had previous federal sentences (see Table 5). In comparison, only 34% of inmates within the general population had served a previous federal term (Correctional Service Canada, 2000b).

As also shown in Table 5, differences appeared between DO's and LTSO's in the number of prior adult convictions. Approximately one-half (45%) of DO's had 15 or more prior adult convictions, compared to 26% of LTSO's. Similar to those serving LTSO's, the largest proportion of offenders from the general inmate population had 15 or more convictions (32%) (Correctional Service Canada, 2000b).

Risk/Needs

In terms of risk, 98% of DO's and 90% of LTSO's were classified as high risk to re-offend (see Table 13). This difference is statistically significant and addresses the differences between the two populations. In comparison, 59% of the general inmate population were considered high risk to re-offend (Correctional Service Canada, 2000b). Again, these differences are to be expected as the purpose of the DO and LTSO legislation is to differentiate between those offenders who are at greater risk of re-offending from those who are less likely.

Overall, 96% of DO's and 92% of LTSO's were considered to have high overall needs. In examining individual domains, DO's were rated higher than LTSO's on all domains, except personal/emotional (see Figure 8 and Table 13). The largest proportions of both DO's and LTSO's were rated as having some or considerable need in the personal/emotional domain (99% and 100%). The differences found between DO's and LTSO's on employment, associates/social interaction, substance abuse, community functioning and attitude were statistically significant. To put these findings into perspective, in the general inmate population, 59% of

inmates are considered high needs overall (Correctional Service Canada, 2000b).

Figure 8.Some or Considerable Need

Releases

 

Although in the past, some DO's have been released, no DO's that were designated between January 1, 1994 through June 30, 2001 have been released from federal penitentiaries. Eighteen LTSO's (15%) have been released from custody. Of the 18 LTSO's released, seven were kept until their warrant expiry date and upon release immediately began their long-term supervision order, nine were released on statutory release and two were released on full parole.

Of the LTSO's who were released, as of June 30th, 2001, it had been recommended that three of the offenders have their releases suspended. Only one of these three had his release revoked.

Pre-DO/Post-DO Comparisons

 

As stated in the introduction, one of the purposes of this report was to examine DO's who were designated prior to the legislation being enacted and compare them with those designated after. This section will focus on the findings of that analysis. All those designated from January 1, 1994 to July 31, 1997 are considered the pre-DO group and all those designated from August 1, 1997 to June 30, 2001 are considered the post-DO group. There were a total of 69 DO's in the pre-DO group and 110 in the post-DO group.

The demographic characteristics of the pre- and post-DO groups are similar (Table 4). In addition, with the exception of arson, there were no significant differences between the pre- and post-groups when the offence type was examined (Table 6). Furthermore, the types of victims, use of weapons and amount of injury are similar (Tables 9 through 12). The one exception was that a greater proportion of post-DO's inflicted serious psychological harm for their current offence than the pre-group (92% versus 81%). Finally, the risk and overall need levels were similar (Table 13). These similarities may be expected since the majority of the C-55 amendments were procedurally based. With the exception of the addition of the LTSO sections and the mandatory indeterminate sentence for DO designations, the remaining changes that occurred were procedurally based. The following describes the few differences that were found between the pre- and post-DO groups.

As illustrated in Figure 9 (also see Table 2), the regional distribution of DO's changed somewhat following Bill C-55. Among the pre-DO group, the sentencing region for the largest proportion was Ontario (39%), followed by the Prairie region (28%) and the Pacific region (19%). Among the post-DO group, the largest proportion were sentenced in Ontario and the Pacific (34% each), and a much smaller proportion in the Prairie region (12%). Larger proportions of the post- than pre-DO population were sentenced in Quebec (9% versus 3%) and the Pacific region (34% versus 19%). However, smaller proportions were sentenced in the Prairie region (12% versus 28%). The increases in the use of DO designations in the Quebec and Pacific regions since the enactment of Bill C-55 may be due to an increase in attention paid to the legislation or perhaps the impact of high profile cases. The Ontario and Prairie regions both experienced a decrease in DO designations after the enactment of Bill C-55. This may be due to a trend among the judiciary to make use of LTSO's.

 

Figure 9.Sentencing Region

The analysis revealed that significantly greater proportions of post- than pre-DO's are currently assigned to maximum-security institutions (38% versus 20%) (see Table 3). More pre-DO's are in minimum-security (4% versus 0%) and medium-security (75% versus 62%). This finding is expected as the pre-DO group has been imprisoned for a longer period of time and have had the opportunity to be down-graded to lower levels of security. This is supported by the fact that there were no significant differences between the two groups when initial security was analyzed.

Inmates in the post-DO group had a larger number of previous convictions than those in the pre-DO group. Over one-half (53%) of the post-DO's had 15 or more convictions, compared to about one-third (34%) of the pre-DO group (Table 5).

In terms of victims, a greater proportion of post- than pre-DO's had one victim (70% versus 50%) (Table 9). This finding may demonstrate a relatively recent shift in judiciary trends to designate an offender as a DO in cases where there are fewer victims.

An analysis of the specific need domains can be viewed in Figure 10 (also see Table 13). There were no significant differences between the pre-DO and post-DO groups regarding the need domains of substance abuse, personal/emotional and attitude. However, a significantly larger proportion of inmates from the pre-DO had some or considerable needs on employment, marital/family, associates/social, and community functioning, as compared to the post-DO group. This finding may be due more to the implementation of the Offender Intake Assessment (OIA) by CSC in 1994. Those assessing need may have first rated many of the offenders as having considerable needs, but upon gaining more experience with the OIA and assessing offenders, considerable need may have become normalized, thus there has been a decrease in the need domains for the post-DO group.

 

Figure 10.High Needs for Pre- and Post-DOs

SUMMARY

 

The primary purpose of the present study was to provide a profile of dangerous offenders (DO's) and those serving long-term supervision orders (LTSO's). In addition, a comparison of the profiles of DO's classified prior to Bill C-55 and those classified under the new provisions in Bill C-55 was undertaken.

Since 1994, the number of DO classifications is averaging approximately 24 per year with a high of 31 designated in 1997. In 1998, the year following the introduction of the LTSO designation, the number of DO's decreased to 22. However, in 1999 there were 29 DO designations. It appears that the new LTSO legislation is creating a new type of offender. This may have important implications for CSC. LTSO's will likely require more resources as these offenders are under CSC responsibility for some time. Specifically, a LTSO would serve his/her custodial sentence, and then would be under CSC's care until the supervision order is completed. As stated earlier, the average aggregate sentence length for LTSO's is approximately 4˝ years and the mean supervision order is a little over eight years. Therefore, CSC is responsible for LTSO's, on average, for about 12 years. As time goes on, it is likely that more resources will have to be directed to the maintenance of LTSO's.

The results indicate that DO's and LTSO's are similar in their socio-demographic characteristics. This confirms the findings of similar studies that have examined federally sentenced inmates (Bonta et al., 1996; Motiuk & Nafekh, 2000; Zanatta, 1996). One finding that does differ is employment status at time of arrest. Larger proportions of LTSO's were employed at the time of their arrest. This may reflect a trend in sentencing whereby those offenders who are able to support themselves, and possibly their families, receive a less severe sanction.

DO's and LTSO's differed from the general inmate population in the type of offences for which they were incarcerated. Similar to the findings from other studies, eight out of 10 DO's and LTSO's had current and previous incarcerations for sexual offences. By comparison, only two out of 10 of the general inmate population was incarcerated for sexual offences.

There were several expected differences between the DO's and LTSO's regarding a number of victim-related variables. DO's were more likely to offend against a stranger, specifically adult females, and cause greater physical and psychological harm. Clearly, the legislation is being used as it was intended, to target the most serious offenders and apply a dangerous designation.

LTSO's on the whole tended to offend against children, both male and female. This finding also has implications for CSC in that LTSO's with paedophilia in their offence history may be assigned some very strict conditions for their release. More resources would have to be used to maintain these offenders with the vigilance required given the nature of the conditions.

Virtually all DO's and LTSO's were classified as high risk to re-offend and high need. In comparison, about 60% of the general inmate population are considered high risk and similar proportions are considered high need. DO's were rated as higher need on all domains except personal/emotional. Therefore, no differences existed between DO's and LTSO's in terms of risk, but DO's were rated as having more needs than LTSO's.

During the timeframe of this study, there have been no DO's released and only a few LTSO's therefore an examination to determine the success rate as well as other variables was not possible. However, as time passes, it would be beneficial to examine the success of LTSO's to determine whether their release into the community is a safe alternative to imprisonment.

As part of this report, an examination of the DO's designated prior to the enactment of Bill C-55 and those designated after was also completed. The main finding was that there were very few differences between the pre-and post-DO groups. This would be expected since the legislation did not change who was declared a dangerous offender. Perhaps the only unexpected finding was that the pre-DO group had significantly greater needs in some of the need domains.

 

Overall, DO's appear to be a more serious and higher risk offender than the LTSO's. LTSO's are somewhere between DO's and the general inmate population on a number of characteristics. Because the number of DO designations has not decreased, the LTSO's are likely comprised of those who may previously have been categorized with the general offender population. Given that LTSO's require greater resources than a general inmate or parolee, this finding may indicate a need to shift resources to effectively maintain these offenders.

 

REFERENCES

Bonta, J., Harris, A., Zinger, I., & Carriere, D. (1996). The crown files research project: A study of dangerous offenders. Ottawa, ON: Solicitor General Report No. 1996-01, Catalogue Number JS4-1/1996-1.

Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (2001). Adult Correctional Services in Canada, 1999-2000. Ottawa, ON: Catalogue No. 85-211, Statistics Canada.

Canadian Committee on Corrections (1969). Toward unity: Criminal justice and corrections. The Ouimet Report. Ottawa, ON: Queen's Printer.

Correctional Service Canada (2000a). Long-term offenders, long term supervision orders and the role of the Correctional Service of Canada. Ottawa: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2000b). Snapshot of Federal Offenders. August, 2000, Ottawa, ON.

Eaves, D., Douglas, K.S., Webster, C.D., Ogloff, J.R.P., & Hart, S.D. (2000). Dangerous and long-term offenders: An assessment guide. The Mental Health, Law and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.

Jakimiec, J., Porporino, F., Addario, S., & Webster, C.D. (1986). "Dangerous offenders in Canada, 1977-1985". International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 9, 479-489.

Johnson, S. (1999, September). A description of long term supervision order offenders. Unpublished Report. Research Branch, Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

Motiuk, L.L. (2001). "The safe reintegration and risk management of violent, sex and repeat offenders in Canada". Toezicht op seksuele geweldplegers na invrijheidstelling, 186, 5-35.

Motiuk, L.L., & Nafekh, M. (2000). "The long-term offender in federal corrections: A profile", Forum on Corrections Research, 12(3), 10-15.

Pepino, J.N., Aubut, J., Logar, M., deVilliers, P., Louis, K., & Carvery, L. (1993). Report of the preliminary recommendations by the Working Group on High Risk Offenders. Ottawa, ON: Ministry of the Solicitor General.

Petrunik, M. (1994). Models of dangerousness: A cross jurisdictional review of dangerousness legislation and practice. User Report 1994-02. Ottawa, ON: Solicitor General Canada.

Solicitor General Canada (1983). A study of the Dangerous Offender Legislation: October 1977-March 1983. Unpublished report. Ottawa, ON: Policy Branch (Corrections).

Zanatta, R.G. (1996). Risk of violent recidivism: A comparison of dangerous and non dangerous offenders. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, B.C.

 

Appendix A

Data Coding Manual

 

DO and LTSO Code Book

22 Nov 2000

Id# = Identification NumberActual Value

DOLT = Is The Offender a Do or a LTSO

1. DO
2. LTSO

DOB = Date Of Birthyyyymmdd

AAD = Age At DesignationActual Values

CRegion = Current Region Being Held In

1. National Headquarters

2. Atlantic

3. Quebec

4. Ontario

5. Prairies

6. Pacific

SP = Sentencing Province

1. Newfoundland & Labrador

2. Prince Edward Island

3. Nova Scotia

4. New Brunswick

5. Quebec

6. Ontario

7. Manitoba

8. Saskatchewan

9. Alberta

10. British Columbia

11. Yukon

12. Northwest Territories

13. Nunavut

LTSOL = Long Term Supervision Order LengthActual Values in Years

SCD = Sentence Commencement Dateyyyymmdd

OMS

Sentence Management

Addate = Admission Date yyyymmdd

DPE = Day Parole Eligibility Dateyyyymmdd

SRD = Statutory Release Dateyyyymmdd

WED = Warrant Expiry Dateyyyymmdd

ASL = Aggregate Sentence LengthActual Values in Days

DFACCON = Date of First Adult Criminal Convictionyyyymmdd

DFACSEN = Date of First Adult Custody Sentenceyyyymmdd

SECL = Security Level

1. Minimum

2. Medium

3. Maximum

Tombstone

Ethnicity = Ethnicity

1. Caucasian

2. Aboriginal

3. Black

4. Asian

5. Other

9. Unknown

Gender = Gender

1. Male

2. Female

EDU = Education at Most Recent Admission

1. Grade Nine or Less

2. 10-11

3. 12 or Higher

4. GED

9. Unknown

Marital = Marital Status at Most Recent Admission

1. Single

2. Married

3. Common-law

4. Separated

5. Divorced

6. Widowed

9. Unknown

Work = Employment at Most Recent Admission

1. Employed

2. Unemployed

3. Unknown

IAA = Intake Assessment Available On OMS

0. No

1. Yes

Criminal History Risk

POAC = Previous Offences Adult Court

0. No Previous Convictions

1. One Conviction

2. Two to Four Convictions

3. Five to Nine Convictions

4. Ten to Fourteen Convictions

5. Fifteen or More Convictions

9. Unknown

CO = Current Offence

1. One Conviction

2. Two to Four Convictions

3. Five to Nine Convictions

4. Ten to Fourteen Convictions

5. Fifteen or More Convictions

9. Unknown

PFS = Previous Federal Sentence

0. No

1. Yes

LPS = If Yes, Longest Previous SentenceActual Values in Years

Previous Adult Offences - Offence Severity Record

PSO = Previous Serious Offences

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PARSON = Previous Arson/Fire-setting

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PUPW = Previous Use of Prohibited Weapons

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PDFARM = Previous Discharge Firearms

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PFCK = Previous Forcible Confinement/Kidnapping

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PVIO = Previous Violence

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PSEXO = Previous Sexual Offences

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PATM = Previous Attempted Murder

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PHOM = Previous Homicide

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PVWC = Previous Victims Were Children

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PVWHI = Previous Victims Were Handicapped/Infirm

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PVWE = Previous Victims Were Elderly

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

P3+V = Previous Three or More Victims

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

P2V = Previous Two Victims

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

P1V = Previous One Victim

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PUP = Previous Use of Power/Position/Authority on Victim

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PTV = Previous Threat of Violence to Victim

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PWU = Previous Weapons Used Against Victim

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PCDV = Previous Caused Death to Victim

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PSI = Previous Serious Injury

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PMI = Previous Minor Injury

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PSPH = Previous Serious Psychological Harm to Victim

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PMPH = Previous Moderate Psychological Harm to Victim

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PMIPH = Previous Mild Psychological Harm to Victim

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PVAS = Previous Victim(s) a Stranger

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PVAF = Previous Victim(s) familiar

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

Current Offence - Offence Severity Record

CSO = Current Serious Offences

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

CARSON = Current Arson/Fire-Setting

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

CUPW = Current Use of Prohibited Weapons

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

CDFARM = Current Discharge Firearms

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

CFCK = Current Forcible Confinement/Kidnapping

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

CVIO = Current Violence

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

CSOS = Current Sexual Offences

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

CAM = Current Attempted Murder

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

CHOM = Current Homicide

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

COS = Current Other Offences

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

CVWC = Current Victims Were Children

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

CVWHI = Current Victims Were Handicapped/Infirm0. No

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

CVWE = Current Victims Were Elderly

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

C3+V = Current Three or More Victims

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

C2V = Current Two Victims

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

C1V = Current One Victim

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

CUP = Current Use of Power

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

CTV = Current Threat of Violence to Victim

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

CWU = Current Weapons Used Against Victim

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

CCDV = Current Caused Death to Victim

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

CSI = Current Serious Injury

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

CMI = Current Minor Injury

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

CSPH = Current Serious Psychological Harm to Victim

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

CMPH = Current Moderate Psychological Harm to Victim

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

CMIPH = Current Mild Psychological Harm to Victim

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

CVAS = Current Victim(s) a Stranger

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

CVAF = Current Victim(s) familiar

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

Sex Offence History

CI = Current Incest

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

CP = Current Paedophilia

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

CSA = Current Sexual Assault

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

COSO = Current Other Sexual Offences(Voyeurism, exhibitionism.)

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PI = Past Incest

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PP = Past Paedophilia

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

PSA = Past Sexual Assault

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

POSO = Past Other Sex Offences

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

FVC = Female Victim Child

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

FVY = Female Victim Youth

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

FVA = Female Victim Adult

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

FVE = Female Victim Elderly

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

MVC = Male Victim Child

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

MVY = Male Victim Youth

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

MVA = Male Victim Adult

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

MVE = Male Victim Elderly

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

Dynamic Factors

EMP = Employment

1. Asset

2. No Immediate Need for Imp.

3. Some Need for Improvement

4. Considerable Need for Imp.

MAF = Marital/Family

1. Asset

2. No Immediate Need for Imp.

3. Some Need for Improvement

4. Considerable Need for Imp.

SOCIAL = Associates/Social Interaction

1. Asset

2. No Immediate Need for Imp.

3. Some Need for Improvement

4. Considerable Need for Imp.

SUBA = Substance Abuse

2. No Immediate Need for Imp.

3. Some Need for Improvement

4. Considerable Need for Imp.

CFUNC = Community Functioning

1. Asset

2. No Immediate Need for Imp.

3. Some Need for Improvement

4. Considerable Need for Imp.

PEO = Personal/Emotional Orientation

2. No Immediate Need for Imp.

3. Some Need for Improvement

4. Considerable Need for Imp.

Attitude = Attitude

1. Asset

2. No Immediate Need for Imp.

3. Some Need for Improvement

4. Considerable Need for Imp.

ADO = If Long Term Supervision Order was An Application Made for the Offender To be Declared a Dangerous Offender?

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

Risk Assessment

Risk = Risk

1. Low

2. Medium

3. High

9. Unknown

Need = Need

1. Low

2. Medium

3. High

9. Unknown

CRS = Custody Rating Scale

1. Minimum

2. Medium

3. Maximum

9. Unknown

SIR = SIR ScoreActual Value

RRASOR = RRASOR ScoreActual Value

VRAG = VRAG ScoreActual Value

PCL = PCL ScoreActual Value

STATIC-99 = Static-99 ScoreActual Value

ORAT = Other Risk Assessment Tool Score(s)Actual Value(s)

Follow-up

ORD = Was Offender Referred for Detention?

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

HDATE = If Yes, Hearing Date of Referralyymmdd

TOR = If Yes, What was the Outcome of Referral

1. Detention Ordered

2. Detention Not Ordered (Released)

SR = Statutory Release

0. No

1. Yes

RCISR = Was a Residency Condition Imposed On Offender's SR Release

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

DATECI = If Yes, Date Condition Was Imposedyymmdd

WORC = Was Offender Released from Custody

0. No

1. Yes

9. Unknown

FRD = First Release Dateyymmdd

FRT = First Release Type

1. Day Parole

2. Full Parole

3. Statutory Release

4. WED (end of sentence)

FCFST= First CIS after First Release

Static

1. Low

2. Medium

3. High

FCFST= First CIS after First Release

Dynamic

1. Low

2. Medium

3. High

SRD = Second Release Dateyymmdd

 

SRT = Second Release Type

1. Day Parole

2. Full Parole

3. Statutory Release

4. WED (end of sentence)

FCSRST= First CIS after 2nd Release

Static

1. Low

2. Medium

3. High

FCSRDY= First CIS after 2nd Release

Dynamic

1. Low

2. Medium

3. High

TRD = Third Release Dateyymmdd

TRT = Third Release Type

1. Day Parole

2. Full Parole

3. Statutory Release

4. WED (end of sentence)

TFCRST = First CIS after 3rd Release

Static

1. Low

2. Medium

3. High

TFCRDY = First CIS after 3rd Release

Dynamic

1. Low

2. Medium

3. High

Readmission

WORR = Was Offender Readmitted after Release

0. No

1. Yes

FRAD = First Readmission Dateyymmdd

FRADT = First Readmission TypeCondition only and New Offence

1. Violation of Conditional Release

2. Violation of Conditional Release

3. New Offence While on Conditional Release

4. New Offence After WED

5. Refusal to Comply with LTSO

 

INO = If New Offence

1. Non-violent

2. Homicide

3. Sexual

4. Violent

SRAD = Second Readmission Dateyymmdd

SRAT = Second Readmission Type and New Offence

1. Violation of Conditional Release Condition only

2. Violation of Conditional Release

3. New Offence While on Conditional Release

4. New Offence After WED

5. Refusal to Comply with LTSO

SNO = Second New Offence

1. Non-violent

2. Homicide

3. Sexual

4. Violent

TRAD = Third Readmission Dateyymmdd

TRAT = Third Readmission Type

1. Violation of Conditional Release Condition only

2. Violation of Conditional Release and New Offence

3.New Offence While on Conditional Release

4. New Offence After WED

5. Refusal to Comply with LTSO

TNO = Third New Offence

1. Non-violent

2. Homicide

3. Sexual

4. Violent

Appendix B

Tables

Table 1.Number of Dangerous Offenders and Offenders Serving Long-Term Supervision Orders

DO

LTSO1

Year

n

%

n

%

1994

21

12%

-

-

1995

17

9%

-

-

1996

18

10%

-

-

1997

31

17%

3

3%

1998

22

12%

17

18%

1999

29

16%

25

27%

2000

26

15%

26

28%

2001

15

8%

23

24%

Total

179

100%

94

100%

1 Missing one LTSO where year of designation was not recorded.

 

 

 

Table 2.Regional Distribution of DO's and LTSO's

Current Region

Sentencing Region

DO

LTSO

DO

LTSO

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

Atlantic

12

7%

8

8%

17

9%

10

11%

Quebec

15

8%

27

28%

12

7%

26

27%

Ontario

68

38%

22

23%

64

36%

20

21%

Prairies

34

19%

25

26%

32

18%

24

25%

Pacific

50

28%

13

14%

50

28%

12

13%

North

0

0%

0

0%

4

2%

3

3%

Total

179

100%

95

100%

179

100%

95

100%

pre-DO

post-DO

pre-DO

post-DO

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

Atlantic

7

10%

5

5%

7

10%

10

9%

Quebec

3

4%

12

11%

2

3%

10

9%

Ontario

28

41%

40

36%

27

39%

37

34%

Prairies

19

28%

15

14%

19

28%

13

12%

Pacific

12

17%

38

35%

13

19%

37

34%

North

0

0%

0

0%

1

1%

3

3%

Total

69

100%

110

100%

69

100%

110

100%

 

 

Table 3.Security Level

CRS - Initial Security

Current Security

DO

LTSO

DO

LTSO

n

%

n

%

P

n

%

n

%

P

Minimum

1

1%

23

26%

***

3

2%

9

10%

***

Medium

83

50%

55

61%

***

120

67%

69

74%

***

Maximum

82

49%

12

13%

***

56

31%

15

16%

***

Total

166

100%

90

100%

179

100%

93

100%

pre-DO

post-DO

pre-DO

post-DO

n

%

n

%

P

n

%

n

%

P

Minimum

1

2%

0

0%

NS

3

4%

0

0%

**

Medium

30

46%

53

52%

NS

52

75%

68

62%

**

Maximum

34

52%

48

48%

NS

14

20%

42

38%

**

Total

65

100%

101

100%

69

100%

110

100%

NS = Not Significant

* = p < = .05

** = p < = .01

*** = p < = .001

 

 

Table 4.Demographic Characteristics

DO

LTSO

pre-DO

post-DO

n

%

n

%

P

n

%

n

%

P

Sex

179

94

69

110

Male

179

100%

93

99%

NS

69

100%

110

100%

NS

Female

0

0%

1

1%

NS

0

0%

0

0%

NS

Race

179

92

69

110

Non-Aboriginal

137

77%

76

83%

NS

55

80%

82

75%

NS

Aboriginal

42

23%

16

17%

NS

14

20%

28

25%

NS

Age at Sentence

177

94

68

109

18-24

3

2%

6

6%

2

3%

1

1%

25-34

51

29%

26

28%

25

37%

26

24%

35-44

74

42%

28

30%

22

32%

52

48%

45-54

30

17%

20

21%

16

24%

14

13%

55+

19

11%

14

15%

3

4%

16

15%

Mean

41

40

NS

39

41

NS

Current Age

178

94

68

110

18-24

2

1%

4

4%

0

0%

2

2%

25-34

25

14%

21

22%

8

12%

17

15%

35-44

87

49%

32

34%

29

43%

58

53%

45-54

30

17%

22

23%

20

29%

10

9%

55+

34

19%

15

16%

11

16%

23

21%

Mean

44

42

NS

45

43

NS

Marital Status

179

93

69

110

Single

90

50%

47

51%

NS

33

48%

57

52%

NS

Other

89

50%

46

49%

NS

36

52%

53

48%

NS

Education

176

90

67

109

Grade 9 or less

104

59%

42

47%

*

44

66%

60

55%

NS

Grade 10 or higher

72

41%

48

53%

*

23

34%

49

45%

NS

Employment

172

90

67

105

Employed

41

24%

35

39%

**

16

24%

25

24%

NS

Unemployed

131

76%

55

61%

**

51

76%

80

76%

NS

NS = Not Significant

* = p < = .05

** = p < = .01

*** = p < = .001

 

Table 5.Number of Current and Previous Convictions

Current Convictions

Previous Adult Convictions

DO

LTSO

DO

LTSO

n

%

n

%

P

n

%

n

%

P

None

0

0

12

7%

2

2%

NS

One

52

30%

26

28%

NS

2

1%

3

3%

NS

2-4

75

43%

42

45%

NS

23

13%

20

22%

NS

5-9

30

17%

17

18%

NS

33

19%

26

28%

NS

10-14

8

5%

4

4%

NS

25

14%

18

19%

NS

15+

9

5%

4

4%

NS

79

45%

24

26%

**

Total

174

100%

93

100%

174

100%

93

100%

Previous Federal Sentence

Yes

116

67%

53

57%

NS

No

58

33%

40

43%

NS

Total

174

100%

93

100%

pre-DO

post-DO

pre-DO

post-DO

n

%

n

%

P

n

%

n

%

P

None

0

0

4

6%

8

8%

NS

One

17

25%

35

33%

NS

0

0%

2

2%

NS

2-4

27

40%

48

45%

NS

11

16%

12

11%

NS

5-9

16

24%

14

13%

NS

14

21%

19

18%

NS

10-14

4

6%

4

4%

NS

16

24%

9

8%

**

15+

4

6%

5

5%

NS

23

34%

56

53%

**

Total

68

100%

106

100%

68

100%

106

100%

Previous Federal Sentence

Yes

44

65%

72

68%

NS

No

24

35%

34

32%

NS

Total

68

100%

106

100%

NS = Not Significant

* = p < = .05

** = p < = .01

*** = p < = .001

 

 

Table 6.Offences Committed by DO's and LTSO's

Current Offences

Previous Offences

DO

LTSO

DO

LTSO

n

%

n

%

P

n

%

n

%

P

Sex Offence

174

92

174

92

Yes

148

85%

84

91%

NS

139

80%

76

83%

NS

No

26

15%

8

9%

35

20%

16

17%

Homicide

174

92

174

92

Yes

5

3%

1

1%

NS

3

2%

0

0%

NS

No

169

97%

91

99%

171

98%

92

100%

Attempted Murder

174

92

174

92

Yes

6

3%

0

0%

NS

5

3%

0

0%

NS

No

168

97%

92

100%

169

97%

92

100%

Forcible Confinement/Kidnapping

174

92

174

92

Yes

47

27%

12

13%

**

48

28%

10

11%

**

No

127

73%

80

87%

126

72%

82

89%

Arson

174

92

174

92

Yes

3

2%

2

2%

NS

8

5%

9

10%

NS

No

171

98%

90

98%

166

95%

83

90%

Use of Prohibited Weapon

174

92

174

92

Yes

15

9%

3

3%

NS

41

24%

14

15%

NS

No

159

91%

89

97%

133

76%

78

85%

Discharge Firearm

174

92

173

91

Yes

0

0%

0

0%

NS

7

4%

5

5%

NS

No

174

100%

92

100%

166

96%

86

95%

pre-DO

post-DO

pre-DO

post-DO

n

%

n

%

P

n

%

n

%

P

Sex Offence

68

106

68

106

Yes

55

81%

93

88%

NS

52

76%

87

82%

NS

No

13

19%

13

12%

16

24%

19

18%

Homicide

68

106

68

106

Yes

3

4%

2

2%

NS

2

3%

1

1%

NS

No

65

96%

104

98%

66

97%

105

99%

Attempted Murder

68

106

68

106

Yes

4

6%

2

2%

NS

3

4%

2

2%

NS

No

64

94%

104

98%

65

96%

104

98%

Forcible Confinement/Kidnapping

68

106

68

106

Yes

18

26%

29

27%

NS

19

28%

29

27%

NS

No

50

74%

77

73%

49

72%

77

73%

Arson

68

106

68

106

Yes

3

4%

0

0%

*

4

6%

4

4%

NS

No

65

96%

106

100%

64

94%

102

96%

Use of Prohibited Weapon

68

106

68

106

Yes

8

12%

7

7%

NS

18

26%

23

22%

NS

No

60

88%

99

93%

50

74%

83

78%

Discharge Firearm

68

106

68

105

Yes

0

0%

0

0%

NS

2

3%

5

5%

NS

No

68

100%

106

100%

66

97%

100

95%

NS = Not Significant; * = p < = .05; ** = p < = .01; *** = p < = .001

Table 7.Sexual Offences Committed by DO's and LTSO's

Current Offences

Previous Offences

DO

LTSO

DO

LTSO

n

%

n

%

P

n

%

n

%

P

Incest

174

92

174

92

Yes

25

14%

9

10%

NS

28

16%

16

17%

NS

No

149

86%

83

90%

146

84%

76

83%

Paedophilia

173

92

172

92

Yes

71

41%

50

54%

*

78

45%

52

57%

NS

No

102

59%

42

46%

94

55%

40

43%

Sexual Assault

174

92

174

92

Yes

146

84%

78

85%

NS

144

83%

71

77%

NS

No

28

16%

14

15%

30

17%

21

23%

Other Sexual Offences

174

92

174

92

Yes

30

17%

15

16%

NS

49

28%

23

25%

NS

No

144

83%

77

84%

125

72%

69

75%

pre-DO

post-DO

pre-DO

post-DO

n

%

n

%

P

n

%

n

%

P

Incest

68

106

68

106

Yes

13

19%

12

11%

NS

6

9%

22

21%

*

No

55

81%

94

89%

62

91%

84

79%

Paedophilia

68

105

67

105

Yes

29

43%

42

40%

NS

31

46%

47

45%

NS

No

39

57%

63

60%

36

54%

58

55%

Sexual Assault

68

106

68

106

Yes

56

82%

90

85%

NS

56

82%

88

83%

NS

No

12

18%

16

15%

12

18%

18

17%

Other Sexual Offences

68

106

68

106

Yes

11

16%

19

18%

NS

17

25%

32

30%

NS

No

57

84%

87

82%

51

75%

74

70%

NS = Not Significant

* = p < = .05

** = p < = .01

*** = p < = .001

 

Table 8.Length of LTSO's in the Community

n

%

1 year

0

0%

2 years

0

0%

3 years

0

0%

4 years

1

1%

5 years

16

17%

6 years

5

5%

7 years

11

12%

8 years

2

2%

9 years

0

0%

10 years

58

62%

Total

93

100%

 

 

Table 9.Victims of DO's and LTSO's - number and type of victims

Current Offences

Previous Offences

DO

LTSO

DO

LTSO

n

%

n

%

P

n

%

n

%

P

1 Victim

173

92

172

91

Yes

107

62%

52

57%

NS

39

23%

31

34%

*

No

66

38%

40

43%

133

77%

60

66%

2 Victims

172

92

172

91

Yes

33

19%

19

21%

NS

41

24%

27

30%

NS

No

139

81%

73

79%

131

76%

64

70%

3 or more Victims

173

92

172

91

Yes

53

31%

32

35%

NS

138

80%

68

75%

NS

No

120

69%

60

65%

34

20%

23

25%

Child Victim

174

92

171

91

Yes

86

49%

56

61%

NS

89

52%

62

68%

**

No

88

51%

36

39%

82

48%

29

32%

Elderly Victim

173

92

172

91

Yes

13

8%

3

3%

NS

11

6%

2

2%

NS

No

160

92%

89

97%

161

94%

89

98%

Handicapped Victim

173

92

173

91

Yes

7

4%

1

1%

NS

6

3%

2

2%

NS

No

166

96%

91

99%

167

97%

89

98%

Victim was Stranger

169

83

167

79

Yes

80

47%

30

36%

NS

97

58%

45

57%

NS

No

89

53%

53

64%

70

42%

34

43%

Victim was Known

170

84

170

82

Yes

106

62%

59

70%

NS

126

74%

71

87%

*

No

64

38%

25

30%

44

26%

11

13%

Table continued on next page

Table 9 (continued)

Current offences

Previous offences

pre-DO

post-DO

pre-DO

post-DO

n

%

n

%

P

n

%

n

%

P

1 Victim

68

105

68

104

Yes

34

50%

73

70%

**

8

12%

31

30%

**

No

34

50%

32

30%

60

88%

73

70%

2 Victims

68

104

68

104

Yes

17

25%

16

15%

NS

9

13%

32

31%

**

No

51

75%

88

85%

59

87%

72

69%

3 or more Victims

68

105

68

104

Yes

21

31%

32

30%

NS

54

79%

84

81%

NS

No

47

69%

73

70%

14

21%

20

19%

Child Victim

68

106

67

104

Yes

35

51%

51

48%

NS

36

54%

53

51%

NS

No

33

49%

55

52%

31

46%

51

49%

Elderly Victim

68

105

67

105

Yes

4

6%

9

9%

NS

4

6%

7

7%

NS

No

64

94%

96

91%

63

94%

98

93%

Handicapped Victim

68

105

68

105

Yes

2

3%

5

5%

NS

3

4%

3

3%

NS

No

66

97%

100

95%

65

96%

102

97%

Victim was Stranger

67

102

68

99

Yes

36

54%

44

43%

NS

42

62%

55

56%

NS

No

31

46%

58

57%

26

38%

44

44%

Victim was Known

67

103

68

102

Yes

36

54%

70

68%

NS

48

71%

78

76%

NS

No

31

46%

33

32%

20

29%

24

24%

NS = Not Significant

* = p < = .05

** = p < = .01

*** = p < = .001

Table 10.Victims of DO's and LTSO's - sex and age

DO

LTSO

n

%

n

%

P

Victim - Female Child

172

91

Yes

69

40%

40

44%

NS

No

103

60%

51

56%

Victim - Female Youth

171

91

Yes

79

46%

23

25%

***

No

92

54%

68

75%

Victim - Female Adult

171

92

Yes

104

61%

33

36%

***

No

67

39%

59

64%

Victim - Female Elderly

171

91

Yes

11

6%

4

4%

NS

No

160

94%

87

96%

Victim - Male Child

172

91

Yes

48

28%

32

35%

NS

No

124

72%

59

65%

Victim - Male Youth

172

91

Yes

34

20%

21

23%

NS

No

138

80%

70

77%

Victim - Male Adult

172

91

Yes

18

10%

6

7%

NS

No

154

90%

85

93%

Victim - Male Elderly

172

91

Yes

3

2%

0

0%

NS

No

169

98%

91

100%

pre-DO

post-DO

n

%

n

%

P

Victim - Female Child

67

105

Yes

29

43%

40

38%

NS

No

38

57%

65

62%

Victim - Female Youth

67

104

Yes

29

43%

50

48%

NS

No

38

57%

54

52%

Victim - Female Adult

67

104

Yes

41

61%

63

61%

NS

No

26

39%

41

39%

Victim - Female Elderly

67

104

Yes

6

9%

5

5%

NS

No

61

91%

99

95%

Victim - Male Child

68

104

Yes

18

26%

30

29%

NS

No

50

74%

74

71%

Victim - Male Youth

68

104

Yes

12

18%

22

21%

NS

No

56

82%

82

79%

Victim - Male Adult

68

104

Yes

9

13%

9

9%

NS

No

59

87%

95

91%

Victim - Male Elderly

68

104

Yes

1

1%

2

2%

NS

No

67

99%

102

98%

NS = Not Significant, * = p < = .05, ** = p < = .01, *** = p < = .001

 

Table 11.Use of Weapons

Current Offences

Previous Offences

DO

LTSO

DO

LTSO

n

%

n

%

P

n

%

n

%

P

Weapons Used

172

92

172

89

Yes

69

40%

15

16%

***

83

48%

21

24%

***

No

103

60%

77

84%

89

52%

68

76%

Threat of Violence

172

91

170

89

Yes

127

74%

45

49%

***

127

75%

50

56%

**

No

45

26%

46

51%

43

25%

39

44%

Use of Power

173

92

172

91

Yes

129

75%

60

65%

NS

124

72%

68

75%

NS

No

44

25%

32

35%

48

28%

23

25%

Current Offences

Previous Offences

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

n

%

n

%

P

n

%

n

%

P

Weapons Used

68

104

68

104

Yes

31

46%

38

37%

NS

36

53%

47

45%

NS

No

37

54%

66

63%

32

47%

57

55%

Threat of Violence

68

104

68

102

Yes

55

81%

72

69%

NS

49

72%

78

76%

NS

No

13

19%

32

31%

19

28%

24

24%

Use of Power

68

105

68

104

Yes

52

76%

77

73%

NS

48

71%

76

73%

NS

No

16

24%

28

27%

20

29%

28

27%

NS = Not Significant

* = p < = .05

** = p < = .01

*** = p < = .001

 

Table 12.Injury

Current Offences

Previous Offences

DO

LTSO

DO

LTSO

n

%

n

%

P

n

%

n

%

P

Death

172

92

172

91

Yes

5

3%

1

1%

NS

5

3%

0

0%

NS

No

167

97%

91

99%

167

97%

91

100%

Serious Injury

172

91

172

91

Yes

50

29%

7

8%

***

54

31%

13

14%

**

No

122

71%

84

92%

118

69%

78

86%

Minor Injury

172

91

172

91

Yes

109

63%

33

36%

***

117

68%

43

47%

***

No

63

37%

58

64%

55

32%

48

53%

Serious Psych. Harm

170

91

169

91

Yes

149

88%

81

89%

NS

144

85%

76

84%

NS

No

21

12%

10

11%

25

15%

15

16%

Moderate Psych. Harm

170

91

170

91

Yes

112

66%

53

58%

NS

129

76%

57

63%

*

No

58

34%

38

42%

41

24%

34

37%

Mild Psych. Harm

170

91

170

91

Yes

115

68%

50

55%

*

124

73%

58

64%

NS

No

55

32%

41

45%

46

27%

33

36%

pre-DO

post-DO

pre-DO

post-DO

n

%

n

%

P

n

%

n

%

P

Death

68

104

68

104

Yes

3

4%

2

2%

NS

3

4%

2

2%

NS

No

65

96%

102

98%

65

96%

102

98%

Serious Injury

68

104

68

104

Yes

18

26%

32

31%

NS

19

28%

35

34%

NS

No

50

74%

72

69%

49

72%

69

66%

Minor Injury

68

104

68

104

Yes

40

59%

69

66%

NS

43

63%

74

71%

NS

No

28

41%

35

34%

25

37%

30

29%

Serious Psych. Harm

67

103

67

102

Yes

54

81%

95

92%

*

53

79%

91

89%

NS

No

13

19%

8

8%

14

21%

11

11%

Mod.Psych. Harm

67

103

67

103

Yes

41

61%

71

69%

NS

48

72%

81

79%

NS

No

26

39%

32

31%

19

28%

22

21%

Mild Psych. Harm

67

103

67

103

Yes

43

64%

72

70%

NS

45

67%

79

77%

NS

No

24

36%

31

30%

22

33%

24

23%

NS = Not Significant

* = p < = .05

** = p < = .01

*** = p < = .001

 

Table 13.Risk and Need

DO

LTSO

pre-DO

post-DO

n

%

n

%

P

n

%

n

%

P

Risk

161

78

69

92

Low

0

0%

1

1%

**

0

0%

0

0%

NS

Medium

High

4

2%

7

9%

**

0

0%

4

4%

NS

157

98%

70

90%

**

69

100%

88

96%

NS

Overall Need

157

72

69

88

Low

Medium

High

1

1%

1

1%

NS

0

0%

1

1%

NS

6

4%

5

7%

NS

1

1%

5

6%

NS

150

96%

66

92%

NS

68

99%

82

93%

NS

Employment

175

91

69

106

No Need

Some Need

87

50%

57

63%

*

28

41%

59

56%

*

88

50%

34

37%

*

41

59%

47

44%

*

Marital/Family

175

91

69

106

No Need

Some Need

45

26%

33

36%

NS

9

13%

36

34%

**

130

74%

58

64%

NS

60

87%

70

66%

**

Associates/Social

175

91

69

106

No Need

Some Need

83

47%

62

68%

***

24

35%

59

56%

**

92

53%

29

32%

***

45

65%

47

44%

**

Substance Abuse

174

91

68

106

No Need

Some Need

47

27%

45

49%

***

19

28%

28

26%

NS

127

73%

46

51%

***

49

72%

78

74%

NS

Community Functioning

175

91

69

106

No Need

Some Need

78

45%

61

67%

***

20

29%

58

55%

***

97

55%

30

33%

***

49

71%

48

45%

***

Personal/Emotional

175

91

69

106

No Immed. Need

Some Need

1

1%

0

0%

NS

0

0%

1

1%

NS

174

99%

91

100%

NS

69

100%

105

99%

NS

Attitude

175

91

69

106

No Need

Some Need

32

18%

37

41%

***

11

16%

21

20%

NS

143

82%

54

59%

***

58

84%

85

80%

NS

NS = Not Significant

* = p < = .05

** = p < = .01

*** = p < = .001