One of Canada’s most cited criminology professors is Carleton University professor, Darryl Davies, who studied criminology at Cambridge University and has witnessed the differences between policing in Canada and the U.K. in action, and his expertise on policing has even been requested by the likes of the RCMP. A recent meet and chat with professor Davies touched on everything from the differences between policing in Canada and U.K. to the policing ecosystem in Ontario. It also resulted in an invite to sit-in on one of his classes, a one-of-a-kind introduction into the world of policing, where students interact directly with different policing stakeholders. Here are some of the takeaways from that dynamic think-chat where professor Davies shared his knowledge and expertise on the matter of policing.
Policing across the Commonwealth differs greatly. Canada and the U.K. are at odds.
Policing in Canada has roots that stretch all the way back to the United Kingdom, around 200 years ago, but the differences in policing between the two nations might be best described as being at odds.
At first glance, the U.K.’s approach to policing might give the impression that elements of their approach are something of a contradiction of sorts, stemming from how they employ security cameras to monitor public activity, how the majority of officers are equipped with non-lethal weapons, and how residents are encouraged to report “anti-social behavior”. Simply put, their policing policies have elements that some might consider to be incompatible with policing across Canada: the infringement of an individual’s privacy, officers not being equipped to handle situations that may become violent, and the implications of individuals being encouraged to report all “anti-social behaviors”. None of these three approaches would be welcomed in Canada.
One element of policing that is likely create confusion stems from how policing stakeholders in the U.K. have created a culture that encourages residents to report “anti-social behaviors”, officially referred to as an Anti-social Behavior Order (ASBO). ASBOs were initially introduced in 1998, when they outlined undesirable behavior in public. Some of these behaviours included intimidation, drunkenness, and violent behaviour, but it also lumped in things like begging and rudeness. Although it has been claimed that ASBOs were formally abolished in 2014 by England and Wales, at least one municipal police service in England actively encouraged residents to report “anti-social behaviors” as recently as 2020.
Other stark differences, more positive elements, include how the institution of policing interacts with the judicial system with an emphasis on cautions and deterring bad behavior in an attempt to reduce the criminalization of individuals. The “Caution Act” essentially ensures that anyone aged ten or older will receive a caution for a minor crime, but they must admit to the offence and agree to the caution. A caution is not a criminal conviction, but it could be used as evidence of bad character if that person goes to court for another crime. Additionally, there are conditional cautions, which require a person to stick to certain conditions like going to treatment for substance-related offences or repairing damaged property, and people can be charged with a crime if they do not stick to the conditions. For individuals over the age of eighteen, they may receive penalty notices, which are financial penalties for things like shoplifting and being drunk in public.
To conclude, the institution of policing in the U.K. might be best described as an intricate puzzle, and attempting to understand where and how its different elements fit together can be quite the challenge.
Significant public policy improvements can be achieved in under a year and without costing seven figures.
In addition to being a criminology professor, professor Davies also spent time working at the Department of Justice and shared his thoughts on the amount of time and money it may take to bring about legislative reform. Professor Davies referenced how he had previously been asked to carry out a study for the RCMP, it was for the sum of $80,000 and it had to be completed in four months. Based on this experience and his background knowledge of government, professor Davies believed that almost all legislative reform could be completed and finalized in under a year and without ever having to break the million-dollar mark for costs associated with things like hiring subject matter experts and carrying out supporting studies.
There was also discussion related to the challenges with amorphous terms and abstract language. One such challenge had to do with the three-headed challenge of “in the public interest”, “reasonable prospect of conviction”, and “putting the justice system in disrepute” when it came to laying charges. Another challenge had to do with Crown attorneys asking for a specific number of years as a penalty a person should receive as our courts are based on past precedents, so having Crown attorneys involved in that process was unnecessary and could be inconsistent.
Data management was another topic of discussion, and it was explained that data management had almost never been a priority for policing stakeholders. But the most important discovery may have been how many policing stakeholders lacked internal research units that could play a pivotal role in better understanding different challenges. Despite the different challenges, policing in Canada was in a far better position than other countries, but our biggest challenge seemed to be a lack of will to better the status quo.
Professor Davies’ One-of-a-Kind Approach to Introducing Students to the World of Policing.
When Carleton University’s Criminology and Criminal Justice Department decided to cancel internship opportunities in 2020, making it impossible for students to gain experience with different policing and corrections organizations, students were no longer able to take advantage of opportunities with the RCMP, Ottawa Police, the Correctional Service of Canada, and Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre. To account for the limitations of the arbitrary policy enacted by the school’s department, there was a need to offset the barriers that were damaging the post-secondary learning experience for criminology majors.
As a result of the limitations, professor Davies decided to open his class to different policing stakeholders, but he conferred decision-making powers to set out the terms of those interactions upon his students. The only rule that was imposed by professor Davies was that he would not sit-in on those classes to avoid influencing how students interacted with different police stakeholders. It quickly became a course-defining feature of professor Davies’ class, where students would submit topics of interest for policing stakeholders to receive interest-specific presentations. And it was even suggested by professor Davies that the future sessions could expand to include discussions led by police brass and that the spectrum of policing stakeholders could expand to include speakers from FINTRAC, the CRA (who have a new civilian investigator role), and even the Communication Security Establishment.
Professor Davies’ fourth-year students. The Ottawa Police Association. And myself.
After the meet and chat with professor Davies, we arrived at his classroom, and he introduced me to his class of about twenty students. The students were anticipating a special presentation provided by the Ottawa Police Association (OPA) that would focus on tactical police operations and crisis management. Prior to the arrival of the officers and with professor Davies having left the class, the students spoke openly and shared their experience with this unique learning environment.
All of the students enjoyed the interactive learning experience that was created by having guest speakers come in and speak on different policing-related topics. None of the students believed that the university should be making decisions on career-life decisions on their behalf and about which opportunities they could pursue through the school. As it related to careers in policing, the majority of students preferred municipal policing over federal policing. Their reasons for preferring municipal policing over federal policing included having read about sexual harassment and the inability to implement effective policies around the issue, how municipal police were on the front lines and how students wanted to make an impact, but it also included how federal policing does not pay well compared to municipal policing and that the entire compensation package was better at the municipal level. Overall, the students wanted to know as much as possible about policing in Canada.
When the OPA officers arrived, there were four in total: the OPA president, the OPA labour relations officer, a crisis negotiator, and a tactical officer, with an average of twenty years of experience between the four of them. The class began with the tactical officer who discussed everything from his career path to sharing key insights on different aspects of his job. The crisis negotiator also shared her career path and the science behind crisis negotiations. Together they would build upon each other’s material as well as answer questions, and the OPA president and OPA labour relations officer would also add to the discussion. The students were eager to engage and were asking questions about everything including questions on gender-related data, officer safety, barriers within policing, organizational culture, legislative standards, compensation packages, other crimes, and much more.
In around two hours, the class of just over twenty students had somehow managed to ask a total of seventy questions. The OPA officers did not shy away from answering any of the questions either. The entirety of the class was more of a free-flowing discussion, and the students provided their full attention to the speakers. There was even a sharing of experiences between some students who worked in shelters and how it connected with what officers were seeing. There was also an acknowledgement about how there were more firearms on the streets and that the contaminated supply of lab manufactured opiates like fentanyl made other hard drugs like crack cocaine look like aspirin, and just how much havoc opiates were causing throughout the city.
The breakthrough moment of the evening might have been when the discussion shifted to the topic of integrity and deceit. All of the officers believed that the higher the standard the better the institution of policing would be. Deceit was viewed as the universal kiss of death. The crisis negotiator would go on to share a story about a mistake they had made in court and how mistakes could also add credibility when individuals took ownership of them. Nobody wanted deceitful officers in the organization, not the OPA. nor police brass, and none of them wanted to watch an organization fall in disrepute. However, it was hearing the OPA president and OPA labour relations officer also acknowledge how they themselves had moments where they erred in judgement and made mistakes as young police officers that seemed to catch everyone by surprise, and what was possible by taking accountability.
What makes the acknowledgement of having made mistakes so unexpected has to do with how many organizational leaders are unlikely to ever acknowledge personal shortcomings in public settings, but that is also why there is so much power with that approach. If the OPA’s executive team can share this message of openness with enough listeners, it has the potential to change opinions on how different communities view the Ottawa Police Services and it may be enough to revive programs like having school resource officers back in schools.
A special thanks to Carleton University professor Darryl Davies for allowing me to sit-in on his class and experience his unique approach to facilitating learning among his students, and to the Ottawa Police Association for being open to having their presentation and discussion with students documented for the purposes of this article.
