THE EFFECT OF GETTING CAUGHT:

PUlTlNG THE LABELING THEORY TO THE EMPlRlCAL TEST

A Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of Graduate Studies

of

The University of Guelph

by

TARA LEIGH HENDERSON

In partial fulfillment of requirements

for the degree of

Master of Arts

December, 1997

O Tara Henderson, 1997 National Library Bibliothèque nationale I+I.,anada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. me Wellington OttawaON K1AON4 OttawaON K1AON4 Canada Canada vour fib votre reference

Our fils Notre rcifdrence

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence dowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothéque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la fonne de microfiche/^ de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. ABSTRACT

THE EFFECT OF GETTlNG CAUGHT: PUlTfNG THE LABELING THEORY 10 THE EMPlRlCAL TEST

Tara Leigh Henderson Advisor University of Guelph, 1997 Dr. Ron Hinch

Labeling theory proposes that it is not the actor alone, but the reactors, or

agents of social control who detemine whether or not a youth will progress

down a delinquent path. This paper reports the results of a multiple regression

model that used longitudinal data to examine interactive effects of negative

social sanctions, namely the application of stigmatizing labels. Specifically, this

study examines the effects of the charging and diversionary pradices of the

police on recidivisrn among young offenders. in a southem Ontario region. As

key gatekeepers of the juvenile justice system, it is the police who ultimately

determine which youths will be processed through the system. The model

asserts that the most important predidor variables of recidivism include a set of

both legal; age, sex, comrnunity, and extra legal variables; charge laid,

seriousness of the first offence, severity of the disposition for the first offence

and severity of disposition, and seriousness of subsequent offences. It is

concluded that the labeling perspective may have the potential of directing us

into the type of research that will infom us as to what the police really do and what the consequences of these actions really are. Acknowledgrnents

First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Ron Hinch for his guidance and support over the past year, especially helping me through the numerous panic stages I experienced. As for my cornmittee memben, Dr. Neil

MacKinnon and Dr. William O'Grady, I thank you for your time, but most of al1 your expertise. I would also like to thank Joanne Duncan-Robinson for her unconditional and ongoing guidance throughout this entire process. To my fellow graduate students, thank you for the fun and the challenges, in particular,

Karen MacCon and Melanie Bremner, the only other two people who really understand. I would also like to thank lnspector Dan Okuloski for the opportunity to conduct this research, and his ongoing support throughout. Finally, a special thanks goes to Dr. Susan Reid-MacNevin for her support in every aspect of my life over the past five years. Without her I wuld not be where I am today.

Thank you for forcing me to realize my potential.

I wuld also like to thank my family and friends for their encouragement, but most of al1 their belief in me. Thanks for helping me through the tough times.

In retum, I dedicate this finished product to al1 of you, without whose guidance, support and encouragement, this accornplishment would not have been possible. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ...... i

Table of Contents ...... ii

...... List of Tables ...... v

List of Figures ...... vi

CHAPTER I: Introduction ...... 1

Objectives of the Study ...... 1 Chapter Summaries ...... 3

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review ......

Rates of Recidivism Among Canadian Youths ...... Ag e ...... Sex ...... Seriousness of Offence ...... Number of Charges Laid ...... Severity of Disposition ...... Theoretical Framework ...... Symbolic lnteractionism ...... Social Construction of Crime ...... Frank Tannenbaum ...... Edwin Lemert ...... Howard Becker ...... Labeling as a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy ...... Assumptions of the Labelling Theory ...... Labeling and Deviance ...... Locating the Social Origins of the Stigmatic Label ...... Evolution of the Juvenile Justice System in Canada ...... Charging ...... Diversion ...... Documenting the Application of These Labels to Selected Populations Assessing the Consequencas of the Labeling Process for Recipients Future Conduct ...... Limitations ...... CHAPTER 3: Methodology ...... 41

Sampling ...... 41 Data Collection ...... 41 Phase I ...... 42 Extra Legal Variables ...... 43 Legal Variables ...... 44 Previous Offence History ...... 47 Co-accused ...... 48 PhaseII ...... 48 Measurernent ...... 49 Exogenous Constructs ...... 49 Endogenous Constructs ...... 49 Data Analysis ...... 54

CHAPTER 4: Findings ......

Bivariate Analysis ...... Rates of Recidivisrn ...... Effect of Number of Charges Laid for the First Offence on Recidivism ...... Effect of Seriousness of the First Offence on Recidivism ...... Effect of Severity of the Disposition for the First Offence on Recidivism ...... Effect of Age on Recidivism ...... Effect of Sex on Recidivism ...... Effect of Area of Residence on Recidivism ...... Summary of Results ...... Multivariate Analysis ...... Criterion for Trimming Coefficients from the Model ...... Coefficients (direct effects) for the Over Identified Model ...... Equation 1 ...... Equation 2 ...... Equation 3 ...... Equation 4 ...... Equation 5 ...... Equation 6 ...... Effect of Number of Charges Laid for the First Offence on Recidivism ...... Effect of the Seriousness of the First Offence on Recidivism ...... 84 Effect of the Severity of the Disposition for the First Offence on Recidivism ...... 84 Effect of Age on Recidivism ...... 85 Effect of Sex on Recidivism ...... 85 Effect of Area of Residence on Recidivism ...... 86 Effect of Seriousness of the First Reoffence on Recidivisrn ...... 87 Effect of Severity of the Disposition for the First Reoffence on Recidivism ...... 87 Summary of Results ...... 89

CHAPTER 5: Discussion and Conclusion ......

Effect of Seriousness of the First Offence on Recidivism ...... Effect of Number of Charges Laid for the First Offence on Recidivism ...... Effect of Severity of the Disposition for the First Offence on Recidivism ...... Effect of Seriousness of the First Reoffence on Persistent Reoffending ...... Effect of Severity of the Disposition for the First Roeffence on Persistent Reoffending ...... Effect of Sex on Recidivism ...... Effect of Area of Residence on Recidivism ...... Suggestions for Future Research ......

Reference List ...... 103

Appendix 1 ...... 108 Appendix 2 ...... 127 Appendix3 ...... 131 LIST OF TABLES

Tab e 2.1: Research Problem and Hypotheses ...... 36 Tab e 3.1: Conceptuabation and Operationalization of Constructs ...... 52 Tab e 4.1: Frequencies and Percentages of Recidivism ...... 60 Tab e 4.2. Recidivism by Charge Laid ...... 61 Tab .e 4.3. Recidivism by Seriousness of the First Offence ...... 63 Tab e 4.4. RecidRism by Serioumess of the Fust Offence by Charge Laid ...... 64 Tab e 4.5: Recidivism by Severity of the Disposition for the First Offence ...... 66 Tab e 4.6. Recidivism by Age ...... 67 Tab e 4.7. Recidivism by Sex ...... 68 Tab e4.8. Recidivismby SexbyChargeLaid ...... 69 Tab e 4.9. Recidivism by Area of Residence ...... 71 Tab e 4.10. Coefficients (direct effects) for the Just Identifieci Mode1 ...... 79 Tab e 4.11 : Coefficients (direct effects) for the Cher Identified Model ...... 81 Tab e 4.12. Decomposition of Effects for Y6 ...... 89 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.2: Theoretical Causal Model ...... 3 7 INTRODUCTION

With al1 our boasted refons, pretensions of social change and far reaching technological advancements, we still allow human beings to be the scapegoat for our guilt ridden consciences. Ten, fifteen and twenty-five year sentences are handed out in our courts like vitamins. We wndemn the victims of our folly to hellholes named Millhaven, Stony Mountain and Archambault. In an effort to promote the modern advancements in penology we have replaced hard labour and corporal punishment with warehousing, inordinate sentences and psychological labelling. Degradation and cnielty have not ceased, they have just been disguised. So we lock up and tum bitter our social blemishes so that society may be protected from the phantoms of its own making (McCorrnick, 1993, p.24).

Objectives of the Study

The purpose of this thesis is to explore the issue of recidivism among young offenders. I predict that the cbarging and diversionary practices of the police will have a significant effect on whether or not first time offenders w'll subsequently reoffend. Therefore, I hypothesize, from a labeling perspective, that youths who are formally charged, at the time of their initial encounter w-th the police, are more likely to reoffend than youths who are not charged, or diverted by police. Furthermore, I will test a number of additional hypothesis. I hypothesize that as seriousness of the first offence, and severity of the disposition for the first offence increases, the likelihood that a youth will reoffend

also increases.

Labeling theorists argue that rather than reducing crime, state

intervention, namely in the form of police discretion. can have the unanticipated

and even ironic consequence of fostering the very behaviour it was ultimately

meant to deter. In other wrds, from a iabeling perspective, the Criminal Justice

System is not only limited in it's capacity to deter and prevent crime. but in fact

plays a major role in creating more crime through the application of stigrnatizing

labels. While the official application of a label depends on the behaviour itself,

other factors play a role in recidivism. Thus, I hypothesize that older youths are

more likely to reoffend than younger youths, and that males are more likely to

reoffend than fernales.

Although little empirical evidence exists surrounding differences in crime

rates between communities, the area in which the youth resides was included in the model to establish possible differences in the application of a deviant label in different communities, based on the size of the wrnmunity. I hypothesize that youths residing in larger communities are more likely ta be charged and labeled as deviant, hence are more likely to reoffend than youths residing in smaller communities.

Finally, although the initial act of labeling has the most severe implications in terms of the direction a youths delinquent career will take, subsequent labeling also plays a role in this process. Therefore, I hypothesize that as seriousness of the first reoffence. and severity of the disposition for the first reoffence increases, the risk of persistent reoffending also increases.

Chapter SummarÏes

Prior to wnducting any sort of research, a thorough review of the literature is essential. Chapter two begins with an overview of patterns of recidivism among Canadian youths, examining age and sex differences in offending patterns, the distribution of seriousness of offence, charge rates, and the distribution of the severity of dispositions among Canadian youths.

Next, I present an outline of the theoretical framework employed by this thesis, beginning with the evolution of the labeling perspective, as a derivative of symbolic interactionism, foilowed by the issue of crime as a socially wnstructed phenomena, and the writings of many of the early writers of the labeling perspective, including Frank Tannenbaurn, Edwin Lernert, and Howard Becker. I then deal with labeling as a self fulfilling prophecy, and conclude my discussion with the main premises or assumptions of the labeling perspective.

The second half of this chapter deals with three concems of the labeling perspective; (1 ) locating the social origins of the stigmatic label, (2) documenting the application of these labels to selected populations, and (3) assessing the consequences of the labeling process for recipients future conduct. Research surroundhg the first concern has focused primarily on exploring the socially conditioned sources of criminal law. I will illustrate this by discussing the evolution of the juvenile justice system in Canada, specifically the implementation of the Young ûffenders Act, and the implications this Act had, and continues to have on the charging and diversionary practices of the police.

Research surrounding the second concem has concentrated on the creation of deviant populations, and how this has been used to explain patterns in official crime statistics. I will illustrate this by reviewing numerous studies conducted in the past that have identified such independent variables as the social organization of police work, the sociopsychological backgrounds of the police, and the perception of the social class of apprehended suspects.

The third and final concern is perhaps the most important premise set out by labeling theorists, and central to the remainder of my thesis. At this point, following the restatement of rny thesis, I outline my hypotheses pertaining to the third concem postulated by labeling theorists and present my theoretical causal model. Chapter two concludes some of the limitations associated with the use of official records as a form of measurement.

Chapter three outlines the methodology of rny research, beginning with an overview of the research design, sampling and data collection. I then discuss the measurement and selection of constructs. Chapter three concludes Ath a discussion of multiple regression and path analysis, and the hypotheses to be tested.

Chapter four presents the findings of my aoalysis, beginning with the bivariate effects of each of the variables on recidivism. The remainder of the chapter deals with multivariate analysis. I begin by presenting the path coefficients and path regression coefficients for both the just identified and over identified models, along with a discussion of the criterion used for trimming negligible paths. I then discuss the direct and indirect effeds of each of the variables in the model, on recidivism. I conclude with a summary of the results and a table representing the decomposition of effects.

The final chapter discusses the findings in more detail. Each of the proposed hypotheses is examined to determine if it is empirically supported. I also discuss the implications of rny findings in ternis of past research. Chapter five concludes with suggestions for Mure research. RATES OF RECIDMSM AMONG CANADIAN YOUTHS

In 1993/94,40% of youths convicted of a Criminal Code offence in

Canadian youth courts were repeat offenders, and 25% were persistent repeat

offenders (Doherty and de Souza, 1995). According to Statistics Canada, repeat

offender is defined as "a young person who was found guilty of at least one

federal statute charge during 1993194 and had been previously convicted in a

youth court of at least one other federal statute since 1986/87 (Doherty and de

Souza, 1995, p.2)," and persistent reoffender refers to those youths who have

been convicted of three or more prior offences.

Age

Given that older youths have more time to both offend and reoffend than their younger counterparts, it is not surprising that older youths are more likely to

reoffend than younger youths. In other words, the proportion of repeat young offenders increases with age. In 1993194, 81 % of al! recidivists were 15 years of age or older. The percentage of repeat offenders increased from 16% for 12 year olds to 50% for 17 year olds (Doherty and de Souza, 1995). Sex

Males are more likely to be both repeat and persistent repeat offenden than female young offenders. In 1993/94,44% of males convicted in Canadian youth courts were repeat offenders and 13% were persistent repeat offenders, cornpared to 33% and 7% respectively, of female offenders (Doherty and de

Souza, 1995).

Although the general trend of reoffending among youths increases with age, this trend differs between the sexes. In 1993194, the proportion of male recidivists increased from 80% for 12 year olds to 89% for 17 year olds. whereas the proportion of female recidivists decreased frorn 20% for 12 year olds to 11 % for 17 year olds (Doherty and de Souza, 1995). Furtherrnore, females tend to become involved in the criminal justice systern at a younger age than males, but their involvement tapers at an earlier age, generally around 15 years of age.

Males on the other hand, become involved in crime at an older age. and continue their involvement in a delinquent Iifestyle much longer than females.

Seriousness of Ofience

While males predominate in al1 categories of offending, the overall trend for males and females is quite different. The proportion of property offences committed, compared to total number of offences committed, was significantly higher for males, both first time and repeat offenders, than for female young offenders. Furthemore, males tend to commit more serious property offences. such as breaking and entering, theft over $1000, and possession of stolen property. On the other hand, female property offences wre concentrated in the area of theft under $1000, which accounted for 55% of al1 property offences comrnitted by fernale young offenders in 1993-94 (Doherty and de Souza, 1995).

On the contrary, the proportion of violent offences committed, compared to total number of offences committed was higher for females than males.

Nonetheless, females were far more likely to commit less serious violent offences than males. Minor assaults accounted for 17% of total violent offences committed by females, compared to 7% of violent offences committed by males

(Doherty and de Souza, 1995).

Persistent repeat offenders and repeat young offenders tend to commit more serious crimes in both the violent and property crime categories than first tirne offenders. Nonetheless, repeat offenders tend not to progress from property or non-violent crimes to violent crimes. In fact, repeat offenders tend to commit more property crimes and less violent crimes than first time offenders. In

1993194, 65% of recidivists were wnvicted of property offences, compared to

60% of first time offenders. Correspondingly, 19% of repeat offenders wmmitted violent offences, compared to 25% of first time offenders (Doherty and de Souza, 1995). Number of Charges Laid

'Using the number of charges in a case as a measurement of the

offenders relative level of criminal activity, recidivists were found to be more

active in 1993/94 than first time offenders. As the number of prior convictions

increased, there was a steady increase in the proportion of multiple charge

cases - from 48% for first time offenders to 64% of offenders with three or more

prior convictions (Doherty and de Souza, 1995, p.8)." This trend appears to be

true for both male and female young offenders.

Severity of Disposition

There is a strong correlation between a youths previous offence history

and the type and severity of disposition handed down by Canadian youth courts.

As the number of prior convictions increases, the severity of the disposition

increases. In 1993194, 60Y0 of persistent repeat offenders received a custodial

disposition, compared to 10% of first time offenders. Furthemore, repeat

offenders accaunted for 76% of the secure custody population, and 70% of the open custody population (Doherty and de Scuza, 1995). Ernpirical research is derived from theory. Therefore, in order to fully understand the meaning of ernpirical findings, one must first understand the theoretical framework which

lays the foundation for empirical testing. The remainder of this chapter deals with the theoretical frarnework employed by this thesis. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

When an individual commits an offence, it is assumed that law

enforcement officiais will take al1 possible measures to apprehend the offender

and process them through the Criminal Justice Systern. Rooted in this

assumption, is yet another, which assumes that state intervention reduces crime,

either through punishment, rehabilitation, or simply locking up the offender, so

they are no longer free to reoffend.

Labeling theorists argue that, rather than reducing crime, state

intervention can have the unanticipated and even ironic consequence of fostering the very behaviour it was ultimately meant to deter. In other words, from a labeling perspective, the Criminal Justice System is not only limited in it's capacity to deter and prevent crime, but in fact plays a major role in creating more crime. Processing offenders through the system creates more crime, not

less (Lilly, Cullen and Ball, 1989).

Symbolic Interactionism:

Symbolic interactionism is a synthesis of both classical and contemporary thought which evolved primarily out of the vwitings of George Herbert Mead,

Charles Horton Cooley, W.I. Thomas, Herbert Blumer and Irving GofFman.

There are 7 basic propositions that surnmarize the main features of symbolic interactionism. First. 'distinctively human behaviour and interaction are carried on through the medium of symbols and their meanings (Manis and Meltzer. 1978, p.6)." This is the main prernise of the interactionist perspective. lnteractionists assert that human beings, unlike other species, assign meanings to stimuli and respond. not directly toward the stimuli, but on the basis of assigned meanings.

These meanings are socially derived through interaction with others (Manis and

Meltzer, 1978).

Second, 'the individual becomes humanized through interaction with others (Manis and Meltzer., 1978. p.6)." In other words, interactionists argue that we are not bom human, but in essence, become human through our associations with others. Interaction, is thus seen as creating human nature, mind (the use of symbols), and self (the ability to behave toward oneself as toward others), al1 central components of symbolic interactionism. Society is regarded as the key elernent in the formation of humanness (Manis and Meltzer,

1978).

Third, 'human society is most usefully conceived as consisting of people of interaction (Manis and Meltzer, 1978. p.6)." This proposition asserts that many of the structural features that exist in society, such as social roles and classes do not detemine human behaviour or interaction, but set the stage for these actions. 'The organization of any society is a framework within which social action takes place, not a set of complete detemiinants of the action (Manis and Meitzer, 1978, p.7)." The fourth proposition asserts that human beings have both the capacity

and ability to create and change their own behaviour (Manis and Meltzer, 1978).

The ffih proposition deals with the consciousness. Two central components of interadionism, specifically the self, are the I; the impulsive aspect of the self, and the Me; the set of intemalized social definitions. lnteractionists assert that the interaction that occurs between these distinct aspects of the self are comparable to interaction that occurs w-th others. In essence, this is what makes a human being a social being. This interaction with oneself allows an individual to 'designate objects and events rernote in time and space, create imaginary phenornena and other abstractions, and thereby leam without having direct experience of things to be leamed (Manis and Meltzer,

1978, p.8)."

The sixth proposition asserts that "human beings construct their behaviour in the course of its exewtion (Manis and Meltzer, 1978, p.8)." In other wrds, human beings take an active role in creating their own destinies.

Human behaviour is not dependent on past experiences, it is constnicted in the course of interaction with others.

Finally, interactionists assert that 'an understanding of human conduct requires study of the actors covert behaviour. If human beings act on the basis of their interpretation or meanings, it becomes essential to get at actors meanings in order ta understand and explain their conduct (Manis and Meltzer,

1978, p.8)." In sum, human beings, unlike any other species, have the capacity for thought. This capacity is shaped by social interaction. Through social interaction, hurnans leam the meanings and syrnbals that allow them to apply this capacity for thought. Humans have the capacity to alter leamed meanings and symbols that they use in action and interaction, based on their interpretation of the situation. They can modify these meanings and symbols because of their ability to interact with thernselves, which further allows them to examine possible courses of adion, asses the advantages and disadvantages of each action, ultimately choosing one. These intertwihed patterns of adion and interaction are what make up societies (Ritzer, 1996). The roots of labeling theory lie in symbolic interactionism and function as an explanation of criminal and other deviant behaviour.

Social Construction of Crime:

The labeling perspective was the first to dispute the notion that behaviours are somehow inherently criminal. Prior to the emergence of the labeling theory, crime was defined by many criminologist simply as behaviour that violates laws (Lilly, Cullen and Ball, 1989). Howevar, what labeling theorists argue is that many of these criminologist failed to take into account the fact that crime is a socially constructed phenornenon. Crime not only changes over tirne, but it changes from one society to another, even from one situation to another.

Thus labeling theorists argued that the study of criminology failed to explore the social circurnstances that determine which behavioun are deemed criminal, why some people are labeled criminal and others are not, but most importantly, the wnsequences of being labeled criminal.

What makes an act criminal is not the act itself, but whether or not a label is bestowd upon the act by the state or other agents of social control. Thus it is the nature of the societal reaction, and the reality it constnicts, not the nature of the act per se, which determines if a crime exists (Becker, 1963). Pfohl (1985) illustrates this point in his discussion of killing as a socially constructed phenomenon.

Homicide is a way of categorizing the act of killing, such that taking another's life is viewed as totally reprehensible and devoid of any redeeming social justification. Some types of killing are categorized as homicide. Others are not, VVhat differs is not the behaviour but the rnanner in which reactions to that behaviour are socially organized. The behaviour is essentially the same: killing a police officer or killing by a police officer; stabbing an old lady in the back or stabbing the unsuspecting wartime enemy; a black slave shooting a white master or a white master lyndiing a black slave; being fun over by a drunk driver or slowly dying a painful cancer death caused by a polluting factory. Each is a type of killing. Some are labeled as homicide. Others are excused, justified, or viewed, as in the cases of dangerous industrial pollution, as environmental risks, necessary for the health of our economy, if not our bodies. The form and content of what is seen as homicide thus varies with social context and circurnstance. This is hardly the charaderistics of something which can be wnsidered naturally or universally deviant (Wohl, 1985, p.284). Therefore, labeling theorists argue that societal reactions cannot be ignored in the analysis of crime, especially Men it is the state acting as the labeling agent.

Frank Tannenbaum:

Frank Tannenbaum (1938) was one of the first sociologists to recognize the negative impact of the application of stigmatizing labels. Tannenbaum

(1938) coined the terni "dramatization of evil", in which he argued that "otficially labelling someone as a delinquent can result in the person becoming the very thing he is described as being ( p. 19)." Not al1 youths who commit an offence are caught, although al1 offenders are equally guilty. Central to his argument is the consequences of being caught. Tannenbaum (1938) argues that once a youth is caught, he or she is forced to participate in "ritualistic confrontationsn.

Ritualistic confrontations are the events that follow being caught, and are experiences other youths do not share, such as charges being laid. court proceedings, and possible institutionalization. The youth is thus stigmatized, and society begins to react differently to that youth. As a result of this initial dramatization of evil, the youths self-identity begins to change. The youth is so ovenivhelmed by the response to his or her actions that he or she begins to intemalize the delinquent stigma. The youth becomes bad because he or she is defined as bad. Thus, although the goal of the Criminal Justice System is to refom the youth, Tannenbaum (1938) suggests that bringing the youth into the system initially, actually serves as a way of intensifying the problem. 'The first dramatization of evil which separates the youth out of his group for specialized treatment plays a greater role in rnaking the criminal than perhaps any other experience (Tannenbaurn. 1938, p. 19)."

Edwin Lernert:

It was not until the 1950's that any systernatic attempt was made, to deveiop, what is currently known as the labeling perspective. Similar to

Tannenbaurn (1938), Edwin Lemert (1951 ) was interested in societal reactions to deviance. He developed the concepts prirnary and secondary deviance, to indicate those acts that both precede and follow the initial societal response.

According to Lemert, "primary deviation is assumed to arise in a wide variety of social cultural and psychological contexts, and at best has only marginal implications for the psychic structure of the individual; it does not lead to symbolic reorganization at the level of self regarding attitudes and social roles

(Lemert. 1967, p.17)." On the other hand, "secondary deviation is deviant behaviour, or social roles based upon it, which becornes means of defence. attack, or adaption to the overt and covert problems created by the societal reaction to primary deviation. In effect, the original causes of deviation recede and give way to the central importance of the disapproving, degredational. and isolating reactions of society (Lemert, 1967, p. 17). "

Primary deviance is generally random and undetected by others.

However, if and when detected. changes occur. By being iabeled as delinquent, a change in self identity occun, whereby the individual begins to intemalize a criminal identity, and they bewme what Lemert (1951) refers to as a 'career' deviant. As a result, the individual become increasingly involved in a criminal lifestyle. Thus, secondary deviance is created by the 'pains of labeling'

(Lemert, 1951). Once again, the implication here is that, fonal state intervention in the fom of labeling only serves as a means of increasing delinquency.

Howard Becker:

A renewed interest in labeling theory arose nearly a decade later when

Howard Becker (1963) proposed that deviance was created by nile enforcers.

'Social groups create deviance, by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders (Becker, 1963, p.9)." Becker (1963) argues that deviance is not a quality of the act an individual commits, rather it is a consequence of the application of niles and sanctions by others. Thus, deviance is created by social groups who make and enforce rules, and a deviant is one to whom a stigmatizing label has successfully been applied (Becker, 1963).

Becker (1963) distinguishes between mle breaking behaviour and deviant behaviour. He argues that rule breaking behaviour is simply the act of breaking rules. Whereas, deviant behaviour is seen as unfolding in a career-like progression, where "one of the most crucial steps in the process of building a stable pattern of deviant behaviour is likely to be the experience of being caught

and publicly labeled as deviant (Becker, 1963,p.31)." Therefore. a deviant is

someone who has been labeled as such by some segment of society, namely

those whose social position gives them the power. Nat unlike Tannenbaum

(1938), Lemert (1 951 ), and other interactionists, Becker (1963) suggests that

the application of a stigmatizing label, has a direct effect on the individuals self

identity, which ultimately results in the delinquent becoming what other expect of

him or her. In essence, the labelling perspective acts as a sort of self fulfilling

prop hecy.

Labeling as a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy:

A major concept in symbolic interaction is the looking glass self (Cooley,

1902),which asserts that an individuals self concept is a mere reflection of how that individual perceives others conceptions of him or her. 'We are or become what we think others think we are (Akers, 1997, p. 1OO)." In other words, a sort of

self fulfilling prophecy takes place, where the individual begins to take on the very same characteristics, that individual perceives others have of him or her.

'What others think we are is communicated in part by applying labels to us; thus, our self concept and actions cm be shaped by such societal labeling (Akers,

1997, p. 1NI)." According to the labeling perspective, labeling, as a process of symbolic interactionism cm be applied to delinquent or criminal behaviour. The application of the stigmatizing label is treated as an independent variable, Mich ultirnately leads ta delinquent behaviour. The notion that the enforcement of

laws meant to deter crime sometimes has the unintended consequence of fostering more crime, is central ta the labeling perspective (Akers, 1997)

Assumptions of the Labeling Theory:

Labeling theory as an explanation of criminal and deviant behaviour is grounded in the conceptual framework of symbolic interactionism. The labeling theory makes four basic assumptions. First, initial acts of delinquency are caused by multiple factors, which according to the labeling theory, are relatively unimportant in the larger scheme of things (Lemert. 1951, 1967).

Second, the primary determinant of future offending is the initial application of a stigmatizing label (Becker, 1963; Lemert, 1951; Tannenbaum,

1938). A label can be attached either fonnally or informally. Labeling theory asserts that societal reactions to youth crime, both fonal and informal. can influence the subsequent actions and attitudes of a youth. Emphasis is placed not on the causes of crime, but on how the forma1 label of young offender or delinquent may further contribute to re-offending (Becker, 1963; Lemert, 1951 ;

Tannenbaum, 1938). According to the iabeling perspective, officially labeling a young person as a young offender cmresult in the youth becoming the very thing he or she is defined as. "An ironic, unintended consequence of labeling, therefore, is that the person becomes what the sanctioning process meant to prevent, even if he or she did not set out that way (Akers, 1997, p. 101)." Third, subsequent offending is directly related to the application of a

stigmatizing label. It is argued that labels alter an individual's self image to the

extent that the individual begins to identify with the label, in this case a young

offender, and ultimately begins to act in such a rnanner (Becker, 1963; Lemert.

1951; Tannenbaum, 1938). "The basic symbolic interactionist proposition at the

heart of the labeling theory is that the formation of the individuals identity is a

reflection of others' definition of him or her (Akers, 1997, p.101)." Specifically,

individuals who are stigmatized as deviant are more likely than those who are not labeled. to take on a deviant self identity.

Finally, the oficial application of a label is dependent on the behaviour

itself, but other factors, such as age, gender. race, class and noms of official agencies, play a role in recidivism. However, one does not have to be officially labeled a young offender in order to re-offend.

The labeling theory by no means clairns that delinquency is directly caused by a stigmatizing label. It is often misinterpreted as not only simplistic, but a one way causal model. It is not a one way process, rather, the formation of an individual's self concept is an interactive process. In fact. Becker (1963) argues that this interaction process could go either way. Societal reaction in the form of the application of a stigrnatizing label may actually deter an individual from engaging in subsequent delinquency. Nonetheless the primary position of labeling theory remains that an individual's "subsequent deviant behaviour is directly and significantly affected by the labeling process (Akers, 1997, p-IOI)." This is further emphasized by those who apply these stigmatizing labels, namely the police, courts, institutions and government officiais. 'When wnfronted with a label applied by those power and authority, the individual has little power to resist or negotiate his or her identification with it (Akers, 1997, p. 1OZ)."

In sum,

'labeling theorist interpret deviance not as a static entity whose causes are sought out, but rather as a dynarnic process of syrnbolic interaction between both deviants and nondeviants. Consequently, labeling theorists do not ask as traditional sociologists do: What causes deviant behaviour? Instead, they ask at least two questions: (1) Who applies the deviant label to whom? (2) What wnsequences does the application of this label have for the person labeled and for the people who apply the label? (These questions can be expressed in ternis of symbolic interactionism: Who interprets whose behaviour as deviant? And how does this interpretation affect the behaviour of both parties involved in the rnatrix of interaction? (Thio, 1988, p. 55).

LABELJNG AND DEWANCE

Labeling theorists assert that it is not the actor alone, but the reactors who are responsible for crime. Three concems of the labeling perspective on deviance will be discussed. These include: 1 ) Locating the social origins of the stigmatic label, (2) documenting the application of these labels to selected populations, (3) assessing the consequences of the labeling process for the recipients future wnduct (Hagan, 1972) (1) Locating the Social Origins of the Stigmatic Label

The first concern of the labeling perspective is that the problem to be

explained is labeling, rather than the behaviour of the person labeled. From this

point of view, deviance is simply defined as those persons and acts that get

caught and labeled as deviant. Labeling is thus taken as the dependent

variable, and the purpose is to examine sociological variables that may causally

influence this labeling process (Hagan, 1972). Research in this area has focused prirnarily on exploring the socially conditioned sources of criminal law including such studies as Sutherland's (1950) inquiry into the development of sexual psychopath laws, Hall's (1952) investigation of modem theft laws,

Chambliss' (1964) study of the origins of vagrancy laws, and Becker's (1963) review of the origins of marijuana legislation.

For the purpose of this study, understanding the evolution of the juvenile justice systern in Canada, specifically the underlying assumptions of our curent

Young Offenders Act, is paramount to understanding the reactions of the police and other social control agencies to youth crime. The social transformation from primary to secondary deviance, that Lemert (1951 ) discusses, or that of a stigmatized delinquent status, as diswssed by Becker (1963),seems at least partially contingent upon the reactions of law enforcement officiais. However, changes in the law itself reflect changes in the reactions of social control agents.

Thus, a brief overview of the origins of the YOA and subsequent provisions to the Act, are necessary to understanding the differences in charging practices of the police over the past 15 years.

Evolution of the Juvenile Justice System in Canada

Controversial from the outset, the Young Offenders Act has attracted much public criticism, but the critics are coming from opposite ends of the spectrum, the get tough critics who argue the Act is too lenient and advocates of rehabilitation who argue the Act is already tough enough (Bala, 1994).

The Young Offenders Act replaced it's precedor The Juvenile

Delinquency Act in April of 1984 for various reasons. The Juvenile Delinquency

Act, adopted in 1908, ernployed a child welfare approach which emphasized the needs of the young person above al1 else, be it the protection of society or punishment of the young offender. The act stated "every juvenile delinquent shall be treated not as a criminal but a misdirected child, and one needing aid, encouragement, help and assistance (Hylton, 1994, p.231)." All young persons were lumped into one al1 encompassing category of delinquency. The Juvenile

Delinquency Act did not make a distinction betvwen serious criminal offences and acts that were not criminal at al1 (Hylton, 1994).

Where the Juvenile Delinquency Act emphasised the needs of the young person as being prirnary, the Young Offenders Act places more emphasis on the criminal behaviour and accountabiiity of the young person and the protection of society (Caputo, 1993). The Young Offenders Act is clearly criminal law. Young offenders are charged with a specific offence under the Young Offenden Act

and sentenced for a deteninate period of time. Dispositions are not only based on the needs of the young offender, but ultimately, on the protection of society

(Hylton, 1994).

Given it's broad definition and long history, it is not surprising the Juvenile

Delinquency Act was severely criticised. The child welfare approach of the

Juvenile Delinquency Act failed to recognize the importance of punishment and deterrence, by emphasizing the needs of delinquents and neglecting the right of society to be protected from them (Hylton, 1994). The Act focused on rehabilitation, but in more cases than not, treatment was not available. "Thus by failing to punish or treat young offenden, they were neither detened nor rehabilitated (Hylton, 1994, p.232)." Furthemore, dispositions were inadequate, social welfare authorities had far too much discretion, youths were not held accountable for their actions and due process rights were not extended to young offenders, including access to legal representation.

Where the philosophy of the Juvenile Delinquency Act was based on rehabilitation, that of the Young Offenders Act is based on punishment

(Leischeid, Jaffe and Willis, 1994). Canada is obviously moving away from a youth justice system that recognizes the needs of young people toward a system whose primary focus is the protection of society, accountabifity of the youth and deterrence. Since the Young Offenders Act was implernented in 7984, incarceration rates have gone up, despite ovenivtielming evidence to prove that punishment is not an effective deterrent (Hylton, 1994). However, youths are

now granted the right to due process which includes the right to legal

representation, the right to participate in court proceedings and the right to have

dispositions reviewed (Hylton, 1994).

What links the labeling perspective to the analysis of social control

agencies is the decision making process utilized in the handling of young offenders. As a young offender is processed through the various stages of the

Criminal Justice System, decisions are made that influence the direction a youths delinquent career will take. The police the courts, and other agents of social control within the Criminal Justice System, ail play a key role in detemining the direction of a youths delinquent 'career' (Hagan, 1972).

Nonetheless, the focus of this thesis is on the most important of these agents of social control, the police. 'As key gatekeepen of the youth justice system, it is primarily the police who detemine the nurnber of youths entering the system and the types of cases dealt with by the courts (Carrington, 1994, p.2)."

Charging

The inception of the Uniform Maximum Age (UMA) provision under the

Young Offenders Act, which expanded the age jurisdiction to include 16 and 17 year olds, in those provinces Mare it was not already in effect, has had a significant impact on the number of young persons charged by the police. The average annual number of young persons charged increased by 40% from 1980- 84 to 1985-90. Howver, taking into consideration, the 17% increase in the

mean annual population of young penons under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice systern, a more valid rate of young persons charged is the rnean charge

rate of 21 %, still a substantial increase frorn 198084 to 1985-90 (Canington,

1994). Furthenore, there wsan annual average increase of 13% in the rate of

young persons charged with violent offences from 1986 to 1993 (Ogrodnik,

1994). However, since there was no change in the mean police reported youth crime rate, the increase in the youth charge rate represents an increase in the proportion of youths suspected of offences, who were subsequently charged.

The average rate of youth suspects who were charge increased from approximately 53% in 1980-84to 64% in 1985-1990 (Carrington et al., 1994).

Older youths are more likely to be charged by the police and appear in youth court than are younger youths (Carrington, 1994; Doige, 1990). The number of charges processes by youth courts increased by 10% from 1986 to

1988. The difference between the number of young persons appearing in youth court and the charge rate exists because many young persons are charged with more than one offence. In 1988, more than haR of al1 young persons appearing in youth court had at least two charges; 20% had two charges, 19% had three to five, 8% had six to ten charges, and 5% had more than ten (Doige, 1990).

Custodial dispositions were ordered for one third of youth court cases resulting in convictions in 1993, of these, 39% were secure, 43% vrere open and 18% were remand. In ternis of gender, males comprised 90% of secure custodial dispositions and 87% of open. From 198687 to 1993-94 there was a 41 Oh increase in the proportion of youths receiving custodial dispositions for serious offences. The total number of custodial dispositions increased from 24% in

1986-87 to 29% in 1993-94. The number of fernales sentenced to custody increased from 12% in 198687 to 18% in 1993-94, and the proportion of males increased from 26% to 31 % in the same period. Furthemore, the likelihood of a youth receiving a custodial disposition increased with the number of prior convictions (Foran, 1994; Leesti, 1994).

Diversion

Police discretion is defined as the decision not to charge a young person apprehended for an offence (Moyer, 1996). In New Brunswick, Quebec, and

British Columbia, it is the decision of the Crown to lay a charge after careful review of the police report. In al1 other provinces, police have the discretionary power to charge or not to charge. Nonetheless, the role of the police in Canada is that of gatekeeper to the Criminal Justice System. Understanding this role is key to understanding the charging and diversionary pradices of the police. and the way the youth justice system in Canada operates.

The increased rate of young persons charged was the result of a decrease in police diversion after the inception of the Young Offenders Act.

'Why did police diversion decrease under the Young Offenden Act (Carrington,

1994, p. 1S)?" Several explanations are given. First, it has been hypothesized that the decrease in police diversion

under the Young Offenders Act was the result of a change in police practices

over the decade with respect to both youth and adult offenders, unrelated to the

Young Offenders Act (Carrington, 1994). This explanation is implausible

because under the Juvenile Delinquency Act, charge rates were generally

analogous for both youth and adult offenders, after the inception of the UMA

provision, the two rates separated in the provinces and territories that expanded

the age jurisdiction to include 16 and 17 year olds. Thus "these findings appear

to nile out the possibility that the observed decrease in police diversion of young

persons reflected a general decrease in police diversion, unrelated to the Young

Offenders Act (Carrington, 1994, p. 17)"

Second, it has been hypothesized that the decrease in police diversion is

due to an increase in violent youth crime (Canington, 1994). Carrington (1994)

argues that in reality, the only category with a substantial increase was that which included vidimless offences, disorderly conduct, drug offences, failure to

appear or escaping custody, propasing that the mix of offences, in fact, became

less serious.

According to Canadian Crime Statistics (1993),the number of youths

charged with Criminal Code offences decreased overall by 6% from 198485 to

1991-92. Youths charged wmthviolent offences increased by 7% and those

charged with property offences decreased by 101. Yet, the increase in the rate of young persons charged with violent offences has begun to taper off in recent years. In 1990 there was a 21 % increase in youths charged with violent

offences, in 4 991 there was a 19% increase, howiever, in 1992 and 1993 there

was a 5% and 6% increase respectively (Ogrodnik, 1993). Thus, 'Wiere is an

increase in the number of violent crime cases being heard in Canadian courts,

but that is more a reflection of increased vigilance by police and society rather

than an increase in the crime rate (Canadian Press, 1993, as cited in Corrado

and Markwart, 1994, p.349)." Two thirds of the decrease in police diversion

was due to a decrease in diversion of non-violent offences. Non-violent offences

comprise the rnajority of youth suspects, therefore any substantial change in

police practices was bound to have an effect on police diversion statistics

(Carrington, 1994). Once again, this is a reflection of an increase in the

propensity of police to charge, thus a decreases in police diversion. not an

increase in actual youth crime.

Finally, it has been argued that there is a significant relationship between

changes in police diversion and the inception of the UMA provision under the

Young Offenders Act (Carrington, 1994). In Quebec and Manitoba, where the

UMA had no effect on the age jurisdiction, there was no change in the proportion

of young persons diverted by police. In British Columbia and Newfoundland where the age jurisdiction expanded to include only 17 year olds, Newfoundland

experienced a small decrease in police diversion, wtiereas British Columbia

experienced no change. Howver, in the other eight provinces and territories that expanded the age jurisdiction to include 16 an 17 year olds, al1 except New Brunswick, experienced a substantial decrease in the proportion of youths

diverted by police (Carrington, 1994). 'The relationship shown in the preceding

section between the change in police diversion and the change in age jurisdiction strongly suggests that it was mainly the introduction of 16 and 17 year olds into the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system, rather than other provisions of the Young Onenders Act, that caused the changes in police diversion (Carrington, 1994, p. 15)" Police are less likely to divert 16 and 17 year olds than 12 to 15 year olds (Carrington, 1994; Doige, 1993). The average aggregate national crime rate of young persons charged with offences was approximately 20% higher in post YOA than pre YOA, indicating a 20 % decrease in police diversion (Carrington, 1994).

(2) Documenting the Application of These Labels to Selected Populations

The second concem of labeling theorists, similar to that of the first, asserts that the problem to be explained once again is labeling, not the behaviour of the person labeled. However, this second concem deals with the manner in which agents of social wntrol apply labels to selected populations.

Reseatch in this area focuses on the creation of the deviant populations, and commonly use this as a tool to explain patterns in official crime statistics (Hagan,

1972). Many studies have been conducted focusing on the social organization of police work, the sociopsychological backgrounds of the police and other agents of social control. and the perception of class-linked charaderistics of apprehended suspects, as independent variables.

Westley (1955) cunducteâ one of the first studies on the use of police brutality. Using the results of a questionnaire administered to a large urban police force. Westley (1955) found that nearly 40% of policemen believed it was legitimate to use violence to coerce respect from the public. Hence, he hypothesized that it would be juveniles who show police the least amount of respect, as a result are more likely to be caught and labeled. Drawing on this hypothesis, Piliavin and Briar (1964) conducted a study on the demeanor of juveniles. They argued that police discretion and the decision to charge is directly influenced by the demeanor of the youth. Piliavin and Bnar (1964) concluded that the "official delinquent is the product of a social judgment made by the police (p.21O)." In addition, there were some racial implications in their findings. Namely, that the demeanor of Afncan Arnericans in large U.S. cities provoke punitiveness on the part of the police. Ferdinand and Luchtefiand

(1970) followed up on a similar hypothesis with sirnilar findings. They found that of the 324 youths who expressed rejection of police authority in a questionnaire, were more likely to be treated harsher in police encounters.

Early advocates of the labeling perspective falsely assumed the existence of a class bias in police work, without any empirical support. However, researchers such as Bordua (1969), and Black and Reiss (1970) put this assumption and others to the empirical test. Bordua (1969) sought to answer the question of what determinants operate in police decisions regarding the

handling of juveniles taken into custody. His findings indicate that class bias

does not exist, yet the type of offence, previous offence history, probation status, age. department and officer have a significant impact on severity of the disposition. Black and Reiss (1970) went beyond class bias and looked at racial discrimination at the level of police encounters. They found that the larger proportion of blacks in custody is not the result of racial discrimination on the part of the police, but a reflection of a larger number of black youths wming into contact with the police. In their field study of police-delinquent encounters,

Black and Reiss (1970) found that police work is primarily reactive, rather than proactive. Thus, it is society in general, who are the source of police intervention. It is society, not iaw enforcement offkials who initiate the social transformation of juvenile behaviour. Nonetheless, once on the scene, it is the police who dominate the social drama, and through the use of discretion, decide the direction a youths deviant career will take. Therefore, police powrs seem to reside in the hands of society at large.

(3) Assessing the Consequences of the Labeling Process for Recipients Future Conduct

A final wncem of the labeling perspective suggests a new alignment of the variables to be studied. The concem has returned to the continuing influence of the applied label in the production of Mure deviant behaviour. Thus, the behaviour of the person labeled is now the problem to be explained and in essence, becomes the dependent variable, Mile labeling becomes the

independent variable. This is perhaps one of the most important premises set

out by labeling theorists, as postulated by many of the early theorist of labeling

such as Tannenbaum's (1938) concept of the dramatization of evil, or Lemert's

(1951 ) concepts of prirnary and secondary deviation, or Becker's (1963) concept

of career criminals. Thus the application of a stigmatizing label has a direct and

significant effect on subsequent deviant behaviour. This is further emphasized

by those who apply these labels, namely the police, the courts and other agent

of social control. The theoretical and empirical basis of labeiing has been

evaluated extensively in past research. Punitive social responses have been

associated with subsequent intemalization of a deviant identity and confomity to

deviant roles. Gold and Williams (1969) found that apprehended youths commit

more subsequent offences than non apprehended youths. Farrington (1977) found that youths Mowere publicly labeled had higher self reported

delinquency scores than non labeled youths. Palamara, Cullen and Gersten

(1986) found that police intervention had an effect on increased levels of

reoffending. Other studies with similar findings include Ward and Tittle (1993).

Klein (1986), Klemke (1978). and Klein (1974). This thesis address these concerns postulated by labeling theorists focusing exciusively on the final wncem, or assessing the consequences of the labeling process for the recipient future conduct. As stated earlier, the purpose of this thesis is to address the issue of

recidivism among young offenders. I predict that the charging and diversionary

practices of the police have a significant effect on whether or not first time

offenders will reoffend. I hypothesize that youths who are fonally charged during their initial encounter with police are more iikely to reoffend than youths

not charged or diverted by police. Furthenore, I will test a number of additional hypotheses. I hypothesize, from a labeling perspective, that:

As seriousness of the first offence increases, the likelihood of reoffending

also increases.

As sevefity of the disposition for the first offence increases, the likelihood

that a youth will reoffend also increases.

Labeling theorists argue that rather than reducing crime, state intervention in the fom of police discretion cm have the unanticipated even ironic cansequence of fostering the very behaviour it was ultimately meant to deter. In other wrds, from a labeling perspective, the Criminal Justice System is not only limited in it's capacity to prevent and deter crime, but in fact plays a major role in creating more crime. The official application of a label is dependent on the behavior itself, however, other factors play a role in recidivisrn.

Therefore, I hypothesize that:

Older youths are more likeiy to reoffend than younger youths.

Males are more likely to reoffend than fernales. Youths from large sale communities are more likely to reoffend than youths

from small scale cornrnunities.

Finally, although the initial ad of labeling has the most severe implications in terms of the direction a youths deviant career will take. subsequent labeling also plays a role in this press. Therefoie, I hypothesize that:

As seriousness of the first reoffence increases, the likelihood of persistent

reoffending also increases.

As seriousness of the disposition for the reoffence increases, the risk of

persistent reoffending also increases.

On the basis of an extensive review of the literature, I have fonnulated the followînghypotheses and specified theoretical model. Table 2.1 presents the research problem and hypotheses to be tested by the theoretical causal model, which is presented in Figure 2.2. The model specifies additional indirect effects and hypotheses about relationships between other variables implied by the rnodel. Table 2.d : Research Problem and Hypotheses

Objectives of the Study

The purpose of this thesis is to examine the issue of recidivisrn among young

offenders. I predict that the charging and diversionary practices of the police will have a significant effect on whether or not first time offenders will reoffend.

Research Problem

I hypothesize that youths who are fomally charged. during theiï initial

encounter with the police, are more likely to reoffend than youths who are

not charged, or diverted.

Additional Hypotheses

As seriousness of the first offence increases, the likelihood of reoffending

also increases.

As severity of the disposition for the first offence increases, the likelihood that

a youth will reoffend also increases.

Older youths are more likely to reoffend than younger youths.

Males are more likely to reoffend than females.

Youths from larger scale comrnunities are more likely to reoffend than youths

from small scale communities.

As seriousness of the first reoffence increases, the likelihood of persistent

reoffending also increases.

As severity of the disposition for the fint reoffence increases. the risk of

persistent reoffending also increases.

LIMITATIONS

The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics survey, cullects information from every police force across Canada, on the total number of crimes reported to the police, the nurnber of persons charged with an offence, separating adults and young offenders, and the number of persons suspeded of an offence, where there was enough evidence to lay a charge, but a charge was not laid. This study is interested only in youths aged 12-77 years of age who were either charged wSthan Mence or suspected of an offence. Thus the terni young offender is defined as any youth, between the ages of 12 and 17 wha has either been charged with an offence. suspected of an offence. or both.

Unfortunately, the actual crime rate or the extent of crime that exists in

Canada can never be fully understood or measured. "Data on youth crime have many limitations, some inherent in the way in which society functions, and others that result from the practices by police (Moyer, 1996. p. 1O)." These include:

Not al1 offences committed by young persons are detected by the police, as a

result an unknown amount of offending that could be considered criminal,

goes undetected.

Communities have different levels of tolerance for offending, as a result may

be more or less inclined to involve the police for some violations of the law.

Police differ in their definition of what constitutes a chargeable offence. Thus,

the use of discretion. and the extent to which the detatls of an occurrence

where a charge has not been laid are recordad, also differs. 39

ûffences may drop out of the system prior to their inclusion in UCR data.

reported to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, as a result of Vary

administrative procedures.

Data on youth crime. in particular. over represent the adual number of

criminal acts involving young persons because many incidents involve more

than one youth (Moyer, 1996).

Some studies have found charge rates to be a better indicator of the actual amount of crime that exists in Canada (Corrado and Markwart. 1994), whereas others have found that police reported crime rates are a better indicator of actual crime rates (Carrington et al., 1994). Charge rates are defined as official acts of aime, where a charge has been laid. Reported rates of crime are defined as both official and non official ads of crime. They include both charge rates and suspecteci rates of cr~me.Suspected rates are defined as the number of persons apprehended by the police. where there is enough evidence to lay a charge, but for a variety of reasons, a charge was not laid. Regardless, both methods of measurement have limitations.

It has been argued that charge rates are the most reliable measure of crime because they involve reports of oficial acts, laying of charges. and there is little room for police discretion. These same considerations do not apply to youths suspectad of an offence, because they are not official acts and are subject to romfor police discretion to report these charges. (Markwart and

Corrado, 1994 ). Limitations in the use of reported youth crime rates as a measure of

uiminality are apparent, however, by looking solely at charge rates, the extent of

youth crime that exists in Canada, is not only distorted, but underestimated.

Nonetheless, if carefully used, official statistics or reported youth aime rates, which include both charge rates and suspected rates, provide the best overall

perspective of junsdictional differences in crime processing by the police (Moyer,

1996). The reported youth crime rate is the best available approximation of the

amount of reported youth crime, hence be the measure employed by this

study. This thesis is an analysis of available data. The data for this research

were collected from Halton Regional Police Services (HRPS) HEART system.

Sampling

The total number of police reported youth cases for the specified one year

period, beginning March 1, 1994 and ending Febmary 28, 1995 was 1637 youth

cases. Using probability sampling, a simple random sample of 15% of the young

offender population was drawn (n=247). For the purpose of analysis this sample

was further collapsed into two groups: first time offenders (n=164), and repeat

offenders (n=83).

Data Collection

The data for this thesis were collected on hrvo separate occasions. Phase

I consists of data that were collected for the target offence, and the previous

offence history. The target offence consists of the rnost current offence

wmmitted in the specified one year period beginning March 1, 1994 and ending

February 28, 1995. Phase II consists of data that were collected for each

reoffence following the target offence. Reoffences constitute each offence that was committed in the two year follow up period beginning March 1, 1995, and ending Febniary 28, 1997. Data on reoffences wre unavailable for 28 cases.

Phase l and Phase II of the data collection were cornbined for the purpose of

analysis.

PHASE I

Predictor variables of recidivism have been the topic of much controversy over the past few decades. Most research to date has cornpared the relative power of legal and extra legal variables to predict rates of offending. Legal variables, narnely nature and seriousness of offence and the extent of previous offence history are often viewed as the only legitimate grounds for predicting

recidivism. On the other hand, extra legal variables such as age, sex, race, and socio-economic status have been considered inappropriate and discriminatory criterion for decision making by police (Horwitz and Wasseman, 1980). A major research issue has been whether the police use legal criteria to lay charges or discriminate against certain groups or segments of society in their decision to lay a charge. In response to the studies conducted which found discrimination in the use of extra legal variables (Landau, 1978; Hirschi, 1975; Tittle, 1975;

Hagan 1974; Charnbliss and Seidman, 1971) and other studies wnducted to examine the comparative impact of both legal and extra legal variables

(Bernstein, Kelly and Doyle, 1977; Burke and Turk, 1975). only one consistency is apparent: the results of these studies are inconsistent. All studies conclude that further research and improved methodologies are needed to adequately

assess the role of legal and extra legal variables in charging decisions.

Therefore, the data reported in this thesis are designed to test the

comparative power of both legal and extra legal variables to predict recidivism.

Although the question of whether legal or extra legal factors best predict

recidivism may be relevant, the purpose here is to look at both, in conjunction with one another, as being equally important as they interplay with one another.

Nonetheless, it is important to make this distinction.

Extra Legal Variables

Extra legal variables include; age, sex, race, area of residence, and type of residence. The 'sex' variable was collected and rewrded on the basis of categories of male (n=179) and female (n=68). For the purpose of analysis this variables was collapsed into a single dummy variable of fernales, with males

being the reference category.

The 'age' variable was collected and recorded on the basis of categories of month and year. It was initially calculated in months as of March 1, 1994. It was later collapsed into categories including youths 12 years of age (n=l ), 13 years (n=14), 14 years (n=22), 15 yean (n=59), 16 years (n=45), and 17 years

(n=106), and calculated in years as of March 1, 1994, for the purpose of analysis. The 'race' variable was collected and recorded based on the categories of white (n=207), and non-white (n=l8). Race of the young offender was not available for 22 cases.

The 'area of residence' variable was wllected and recorded on the basis of categories of the five areas in Halton region; Burlington (n=70), Oakville

(n=79), Milton (n=23), Georgetown (n=24), Acton (n=l 1), and a final category classified as Other (n=35). Data for this variable were unavailable for 5 cases.

For the purpose of analysis. area of residence was collapsed into 5 dummy variables, Burlington. Oakville, Milton, Georgetown. and Acton, with 'other' being the reference category. 'Other' includes the surrounding areas of Halton such as Mississauga, Toronto, and Hamilton.

Finally, the 'type of residence' variable was collected and recorded on the basis of categories of youths who reside in a house (n=202), a townhouse

(n=l 1), and an apartment (n=27). Data for this variable were not available for 7 cases.

Legal Variables

Legal variables include; charge laid, type of offence, details of charge. pretrial release, clearance, and disposition for the current offence and previous offence history.

The 'charge laid variable suggest discretionary policing practices based on other variables such as 'type of offence' and 'previous offence history'. Data were collected and recorded for up to and including five charges for the most

current offence, where applicable. The term current offence is synonymous to the target offence. Furthenore, for the purpose of analysis, the 'charge laid catsgory' was recoded as no charge laid, one charge laid and multiple charges

laid.

The 'type of offence' variable was recorded based on officia1 Uniform

Crime Report (UCR) codes. A copy of the UCR codes can be found in Appendix

II. This variable was further collapsed into 'category of offence, and was recorded based on the categories of property offences, violent offences, violent offences but assault level 1, YOA related offences, dwg offences, offences against the administration of law and justice, offences against the person/reputation and other offences. For the purpose of analysis, several categories were dichotomized into a simple ordinal scale, measuring the severity of the offence. YOA related offences, dnig offences, offences against the administration of law and justice, offences against the personlreputation and other offences were collapsed into one al1 encompassing category of 'other' offences, which is representative of the least severe category of offences.

Property related offences were ranked second on the scale and violent offences and assaults level 1 were merged together as one, and represent the third and most severe type of offence.

The 'details of charge' variable was collected and recorded on the basis of categories developed from information gathered from the synopsis written by the arresting officer. This was done on a cases by case basis, adding and

merging categories where applicable. The original data on the 'details of charge' as well as the rewded data can be found in the wdebook for Phase I of the research, located in Appendix 1.

The 'pretrial release' variable suggests simi lar discretionary policing practices as the 'charge laid' variable. This variable was recorded on the basis of categories of unconditional release, summons, released by the arresting officer (fom 9). released by a Staff Sergeant (fom IO), released on own recognizance with conditions (fom 1 1), released on bail, or no charge laid.

The 'clearance' variable was collected and recorded as two distinct categories, those cleared by disposition and those cleared by y.0. responsible.

If cleared by disposition, a charge was laid, the youth went to court, received his or her disposition, and the charge was cleared. If cleared by y.0. responsible, no charge was laid, the youth admitted to committing the offence and the charge was cleared.

For those youths convicted of an offence, the 'disposition' variable was collected and recorded on the basis of twenty nine categories. These include fine, probation, community service, open custody secure custody, restitution, compensation, order for treatment, withdrawn, alternative measures, stayed suspended sentence, jail concurrent with other, charge reduced, peace bond, retumed brief to officer to have charges relied, absolute discharge, 50s charitable, plus time served, license suspension, pretrial custody, not gone top court yet, 10 year weapon prohibition, consecutive, dismissed, charge not proceeded, general division, acquitted, conditional discharge. For the purpose of analysis, several categories wre dichotomized into a simple ordinal scale to measure the severity of the disposition. The recoded categories were ranked in tems of level of supervision. The initial ranking on the scale is no disposition, followed by no supervision, which includes such dispositions as fines, restitution, compensation, order for treatment, stayed, suspended sentence, stayed, charge reduced, retumed brief to officer to have charges relaid, absolute discharge, 50$ charitable, license suspension, not gone to court yet, 10 year wapon prohibition, consecutive, disrnissed, charge not proceeded, general division, acqcitted, conditional discharge and alternative measures, followd by community supervision which includes probation, and aistodial supervision which includes jail, plus time served, pretrial custody, open custody, and closed custody .

Previous ûffence History

Data were gathered and recorded for up to and including three previous offences where applicable. Variables used for recording data for previous offence 1, 2, and 3, were identical to those outlined above, however, sorne of the categories were condensed. For example, data for each charge are not recorded, only data for the most serious charge were recorded. The remaining variables (type of offence, category of offence, details of charge, pretrial release and disposition) were recorded in a similar fashion to those described above for the aforementioned target offence.

Co-accused

Similar variables were used when wllecting and recording data for co- accused where applicable. 'Age', 'gendef, and 'race' variables were recorded as were 'type of offence' and 'charge laid'. In incidents involving more than one co-accused, the totai number of w-accused involved was recordeû, but data were recorded for only one. Comparative variables wre used to detemine similarities and differences between the type of charge laid for the accused and the CO-accused. These include 'sameldifferent charges', 'same/less/rnore serious charges for the CO-accused,and 'same/less/more charges laid for the

CO-accused. Previous offence history was recarded in ternis of the total number of previous offences, details of the charge wre not recorded.

PHASE II

Data for the follow up period, were gathered and recorded for date of offence, charge laid, type of offence and category of offence, for al1 reoffences committed in the two year follow up period, including total number of offences committed and total number of charges laid for each offence. Further, data on pretrial release, disposition length of disposition, and time spent in custody ware also collecteci for each case. For a complete copy of the codebooks used for phase I and Phase II of the data collection, refer to Appendix I.

Measurement

Table 3.1 represents the conceptualization and operationakation of the variables selected for the regression analysis.

Exogenous Constmckr

The exogenous constnicts comprise a set of socio-demographic constnicts, including age, sex, and area of residence. The age wnstruct is calculated in years, as of March 1, 1994. The sex construct was collapsed into a single dummy variable, that of fernales, with males as the reference category.

The area of residence wnstruct, was collapsed into five dummy variables including Burlington, Oakville, Milton, Georgetown, and Acton, with 'other' as the reference category. The 'other' category encompasses the surrounding areas of

Halton region.

Endogenous Constmcts

The endogenous constmcts are collapsed into two distinct sets, characteristics of the first offence, which includes seriousness of the first offence, number of charges associated with the first offence, and disposition for the first offence, and characteristics of recidivism, which include seriousness of the first reoffence, disposition for the first reoffence and recidivisrn.

First. an ordinal scale of the six offence categories was developed, based on the seriousness of the offence. 'Other' offences, wbich include YOA related offences, drug offences, offences against the administration of law and justice, and offences against the personireputation were ranked as least serious on the scale, followed by property related offences, and concluding with violent offences, ranked as most serious on the scale. Violent offences and violent offences, but assault level Ilwere merged into one catsgory of violent offences.

This scale was used for both the seriousness of the first offence and subsequent reoffences.

Second, an ordinal scale was developed for the number of charges associated with the first offence, based on whether or not a charge was laid. beginning with no charge laid, followed by one charge laid. and concluding with multiple charges laid.

Third, an ordinal scale was developed for severity of the disposition, based on the level of supervision associated with the disposition. The initial ranking on the scale is no disposition, followed by no supervision, which includes such dispositions as fines, restitution, compensation, order for treatment, stayed, suspended sentence, stayed, charge reduced, returned brief to officer to have charges relaid, absolute discharge, 50$ charitable, license suspension, not gone to court yet, 10 year weapon prohibition, consecutive, dismissed, charge not proceeded, general division, acquitted, conditional discharge and alternative measures, followed by community supervision which includes probation, and custodial supervision which includes jail, plus time served, pretrial custody, open custody, and closed custody. This scale was employed to both dispositions of the first offence and subsequent reoffences.

The final endogenous constnict is recidivisrn. This constnict is measured in ternis of the total number of reoffences committed in the two year follow up period, following the first offence. Table 3.1 : Conceptualization and Operationakation of the Constnicts

j EXOGENOUS CONS1RUCTS CONCEPTUAlJZATION OPERATlONALltATlON 1

i Age Biologicai age Age in years, calculated as i of March 1, 1994 j Sex Biological sex Fernale f (Dummyvariable) Male (reference category)

Area of residence Area of residence in which Burlington ; (Dummy variable) the youth resides, including Oakville i Halton region and Milton surrounding areas Georgetown Acton Other (reference category)

ENDOGENOUS 1 CONSlRUCTS CONCEPTUALEATION OPERATIONALlZATlON i Characteristics of the [ first offence i Seriousness of first Seriousness of the first An ordinal scaie of the six , ! offence offence, based on offence categories was categories of offending develuped, based on senousness of offence

O Other offences A Property offences 2 Violent offences

Number of charges Nurnber of charges laid for An ordinal scale was associated with the first the first offence, ranging developed, based on offence from O (no charge laid) to 5 whether or not a charge (5 charges Iaid) was Iaid

O No charge laid 1 One charge laid 2 Multiple charges laid

Data Analysis:

The purpose of this analysis is to estimate and test the theoretical model

presented in Figure 2.2, through path analysis, employing ordinary least squares

(OLS) multiple regression as the method of estimating coefficients in the model.

As mentioned earlier. a simple random sample of 15% of the young offender

population was drawn (n=247), however, there was concem surrounding the

contamination of data for the initial fun, specifically, the inclusion of both first

time and repeat offenders in the model. Therefore, a second regression

analysis was perfoned for those Mowere first time offenders (n=164) in Phase

I of the data collection.

Using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), I ran a multiple

regression for each of the Y variables in the model, regressing Y on al1 of the

variables preceding it in the model, both X's and Ys. After ninning multiple

regression on al1 of the exogenous and endogenous variables, those paths whose Beta value was less than -10, were deleted. I then ran a second

regression using only those variables whose paths wre greater than or equal to

.IO. The final model represents the variables which have direct and indirect

effects on the endogenous variables.

The first seven exogenous variables in the model; age (XI ), sex (X2),

Burlington (X3), Oakville (X4). Milton (X5), Georgetown (X6), and Acton (X7), represent sociodemographic or extra legal variables. These variables are expected to have varying direct and indirect effects on the endogenous variables in the rnodel.

According to the iabeling perspective, the official application of a label is dependent on the behaviour itself, however, other factors such play a role in recidivism. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that age will have a significant effect on recidivism, as older youths are both more likely to offend and reoffend. since they have had more time at risk than younger youths (Doherty et al.,

1995). There is also an anticipated effect of sex on recidivism. It has been proven time and again that males are more likely to reoffend than female young offenders (Doherty et al., 1995). Therefore, I hypothesize that older youths are more likely to reoffend than younger youths and that males are more likely to reoffend than fernales. The next 5 exogenous variables are dummy variables representing regions within Halton. I hypothesize that youths from srnaller communities are more likely to reoffend than youths from larger communities.

Many small scale cornmunities are devoid of large competing pressure groups with different values and consequently, many of the statuses and roles of labeling theorists such as moral entrepreneurs, generic labeling, deviant subcultures and deviant identities are absent in srnail scale rural communities

(Brymer, 1991). Core concepts of the labeling perspective, such as the creation of deviance by labeling and secondary deviance have been constructed on the basis of data drawn from cornplex societies. In small scale societies where there is much interdependence and strong interrelationships, there is a reluctance to label offenders as deviant. Deviance is 'soft' rather than 'hardi in the sense that

it does not threaten the social order. In rare cases of hard deviance. the labeling process occurs (Raybeck, 1991). Although little ernpirical support exists surrounding the differences between communities, this variable was included in the model to establish possible differences in the application of labels between different communities.

The next set of variables, the endogenous variables, include seriousness of the first offence (Y1), number of charges laid for the first offence (Y2). disposition for the first offence (Y3). seriousness of the first reoffence (Y4), severity of the disposition for the first reoffence (Y5), and recidivism (Y6), and represent characteristics of the first offence and subsequent reoffences. or legal variables. These variables are also expected to have varying direct and indirect effects on the endogenous variables in the model.

According to the labeling perspective, "deviance is not a quality of the act an individual wmmits, rather it is a consequence of the application of rules and sanctions by others (Becker, 1963, p.9)." fhus, it is the consequence or severity of the labeling process that determines the path a delinquents career wïlltake.

Becker (1963). further argues that one of the most crucial steps in the process of building a stable pattern of deviant behaviour is likely to be the experience of being caught and publicly labeled as deviant (p.31)." Therefore, there is an anticipated effect between the number of charges laid for the first offence, and whether or not a youth reoffends. I hypothesize that youths who are fomally charged by the police are more likely to reoffend than youths not charged.

Along the same lines, it is anticipated that there is an effect beONeen disposition for the first offence and whether or not a youth will commit a subsequent offence. Tannenbaum (1938) argues that once a youth is caught. he or she is forced to participate in 'ritualistic confrontations', namely the events that follow being caught, such as charges being laid, court proceedings and possible institutionalization, or other types of dispositions. As the severity of this process increases, so does the severity of that youths offending patterns.

Therefore. I hypothesize that as severity of the disposition for the first offence increases, the risk of persistent reoffending also increases.

Finally, as seriousness of the offence increases, so does the likelihood that a youth will be charged. The laying of a charge is the initial step in directing a youth toward a delinquent career. Therefore. I hypothesize that as seriousness of the first offence increases, the risk of reoffending also increases.

Although the initial application of a stigmatizing label is seen as having the most severe repercussions toward directing a youth down a delinquent path, subsequent labeling also plays a contributing role in this process. Thus, it is anticipated that both seriousness of the first reoffence and severity of the disposition for the first reoffence will have an effed on recidivism. Therefore, from a labeling perspective, I hypothesize that as seriousness of the first reoffence and severity of the disposition for the first reoffence increase, the risk of persistent reoffending also increases.

The variables in the mode1 are hypothesized to have varying direct and indirect effects on recidivism. This analysis will illustrate which of these variables are associated with recidivism, and to what degree. FINDINGS

Chapter 4 presents the findings of both my bivariate and multivariate analysis. I begin with the bivariate effects between recidivism and the remaining variables in the model. I then present the findings of my multivariate analysis. I begin with a table of the path coefficients and path regression coefficients for both the just identified and over identified model, along with a discussion of the criterion used for trimming negligible paths from the model. I then present rny findings of the path analysis. Only those paths that either directly or indirectly effect recidivism will be presented and discussed. I conclude with a summafyof the results presented in a table of the decomposition of effects. Rates of Recidivism

Table 4.1 presents the frequencies and percentages of recidivism.

Table 4.1 : Frequencies and Percentages of Recidivism

i (79.3) j i 1 Reoffence ; 20 (12.2)

2 Reoffences ' 7

(4.3) * . 3 ~eoffences1 4 (2.4) 4 Reoffences O (0) 5 Reoffences 2 (1.2) 6 Reoffences O (0) 7 Reoffences 1 (O.6) , Column Total 164 (100)

Over three quarters of the sample (79.3%) did not commit a subsequent offence in the 2 year follow up period. Only 20.7% of the sample reoffended. To break this down even further, 12.2% comrnitted one subsequent offence. 4.3%.

2.4%, 1.2%. and 0.6% comrnitted 2, 3, 5, and 7 subsequent offences. respectively. Effect of Number of Charges Laid for the First ûffence on Recidivism

In order to accommodate for the presence of ernpty cells, recidivism (Y6) was collapsed into two categories, those who reoffended, and those who did

not, for the remainder of the crosstabulations run in this study.

I predicted that the charging and divenionary practices of the police would have an effect on whether or not a youth would reoffend. I hypothesized that youths who were fomally charged by the police were more likely to reoffend than youths who were not charged during their initial encounter with the police.

A crosstabulation was run to detemine the effect of nurnber of charges associated with the first offence (Y2) on recidivism (Y6). In order to accommodate for the presence of empty cells, number of charges laid (Y2) was collapsed into charged and not charged. Table 4.2 presents the frequencies and percentages of recidivism (Y6), based on whether or not a charge was laid for the first offence (Y2).

Table 4.2: Recidivism by Charge Laid

Frequency i Frequency

. . ("ml i - ('5) . A 15 - 19 34 REOFFENCE (16.0) ' (27.1) (20.7) 79 51 130 NO REOFFENCE (84.0) i (72.9) (79.3) 94 70 164 Column Total (57.3) (42.7) (100)

Chi Square: pz.081 The results are as follows; 27.1 % of first time offenders who where fonnally charged by the police cornmitted a subsequent offence in the two year follow up period, compared to 16.0% of the diverted group. On a whole, only

20.7% of the sarnple reoffended, the remaining 79.3% of the sarnple did not commit a subsequent offence.

To break this down further, 14.3% of those charged, committed one subsequent offence, compared to 10.6% of those who were diverted, 7.1 % of the charged group wmmitted two subsequent offences, compared to 2.1 % of the diverted group, 1.4% of the charged group reoffended on 3 separate occasion, wmpared to 3.2% of the diverted group. Nonetheless, 2.9% and 1.4% of those charged committed five and seven reoffences respectively, there were no youths in the diverted group who cornmitted more than 3 subsequent offences in the hrvo year follow up period.

Although, the observed difference between youths who were charged and those who were not charged for their first offence approaches the .O5 level of significance, it is not statistically significant, p=.081. Reasons for this may include the fact that bivariate analysis does not take into account the effects of other variables. Therefore, on it's own, there is no signifiant difference among rates of reoffending behiveen those who were charged and those who were not, however, when other variables are introduced into the equation, the charging and diversionary practices of the police have direct, indirect and significant effects on recidivism, as will be discussed later in this chapter. Furthemore, many of theses youths may have committed offences in the past. but were never

caught. Therefore, reported charge rates may not be the best means of

measuring rates of recidivisrn, specifically, first time offenders.

Effect of Seriousness of the First ûffence on Recidivism

I hypothesized that as seriousness of the first offence increases, the risk

of reoffending also increases. A crosstabufation was fun to determine the effect

of the seriousness of the first offence (YI) on recidivism (Y6). Table 4.3

presents the frequencies and percentages of recidivism (Y6), based on

seriousness of the first offence (Y1).

Table 4.3: Recidivism by Seriousness of the First Onence

Frequency Frequency Frequency (%) (W (%) 8 19 7 34 REOFFENCE (33.3) (16.0) -- (33.3) ----(20.7) NO 16 100 14 130

' REOFFENCE (66.7) (84.0) (66.7) (79.3)

24 I 119 21 164 Column Total (14.6) (72.6) (12.8) (100) -

Chi Square: pe.050

Seriousness of the first offence proved to be statistically significant,

p=.050, where 33.3% of youths who committed both violent and 'other' offences,

committed a subsequent offence, wmpared to 16.0% of property offenders. An additional crosstabulation was fun, this time wntrolling for whether or not a

youth was charged for their first offence. Table 4.4 represents the frequencies

and percentages of recidivisrn (Y6). based on seriousness of the first offence

(YA ), controlling for whether or not a charge was laid (Y2).

Tabte 4.4: Recidivism by Seriousness of the First Oflence by Charge Laid

Frequency Frequency Frequency

- .. ------i i. .- REOFFENCE .- - -. . (41- - -7) -.(25.0) - -- - . .. (20.0) (27.1) NO 7 36 8 51 ; REOFFENCE (58.3) (75.0) (80.O) ; (72.9) , 12 48 10 70 j Column Total (17.1) (68.6) (1 4.3) (100) '

Chi Square: pt.438

The results are as follows; for the group of young offenders charged for

the first offence, 41.7% of youths who committed 'other' offences, reoffended,

wmpared to 25% of those wha committed property related offences, and 20.0%

of those who committed violent offences. However, seriousness of the offence

for youths who were charged, did not have a statistically significant effect on

recidivism, p=.438. Frequency Frequency Frequency (%) (%) (%) I 4 3 7 5 15 i REOFFENCE (25.O) (9-9) (45.5) (16.0) : i NO 9 64 6 79 [ REOFFENCE (75.0) (90.1) (54-5) (84-0) 12 71 11 94 I Cofumn Total (12.8) (75.5) (1 1.7) (100)

Chi Square: pt.007

For youths who were diverted for the first offence, 45% of violent

offenders, committed a subsequent offence, compared to 25% of young

offenders who wmmitted 'othef offences, and 9.9% of propefty offenders.

Seriousness of the first offence , for youths who were diverted by the police, has

a statistically significant effect on recidivism, p=.007. Therefore, it appears that

once again there is no significant difference among rates of reoffending between

seriousness of the first offence for those who were charged, however, there is a

significant difference among youths who were not charged. Nonetheless, on a

whole, there is a statistically significant difference among rates of reoffending

between seriousness of the first offence. Effect of Severity of the Disposition on Recidivisrn

I hypothesized that as severity of the disposition for the first Mence

increases, the likelihood that a youth will reoffend also inaeases. A

crosstabulation was nin to detemine the effect of the severity of the disposition

(Y3) on recidivism (Y6). Table 4.5 presents the frequencies and percentages of

recidivism (Y6),based on severity of the disposition for the first offence (Y3).

Table 4.5: Recidivism by Severity of the Disposition for the First Offence

Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency (%) (%) (%) (%) 16 12 4 2 34 Reoffence (16.0) (27.9) (26.7) (33.3) (20.7) No 84 31 11 4 130 Reoffence (84.0) (72.1) --- (73.3) (66-7) (79.3) Column 100 43 11 6 1 64 Total (61.O) (26.2) (9-1 (3.7) (100)

Chi Square: pt.307

The results are as follows; 33.3%of youths who received a custodial disposition, reoffended, compared to 27.9% who received a disposition where no supervision was involved, 26.7% who received a disposition where community supervision was involved, and 16% who received no disposition. The effect of the severity of the disposition was not statistically significant, with a p value of Effect of Age on Recidivism

I hypothesized that older youths are more likely to reoffend than younger

youths. A crosstabulation was run for recidivisrn (Y6)by age of the young

offender (XI ). Table 4.6 presents the frequencies and percentages of rates of

reoffending (Y6). based on age of the young offender (XI).

Table 4.6: Recidivism by Age

: Fmq : Freq Freq FW Fmq Fm (%) --- (%) - (W - 4%) . W) (Oh 1 O 2 3 9 8 12 34 Reoffbnce (O) (18.2) (15.0) (23.1) (27.6) (18.8) (20.7) No 1 9 17 30 21 52 130 Reofknce (100) (81.8) (85.0) (76.9) (72.4) (81-3) (79.3) Column 1 11 20 39 29 64 164 Total -- (O.6) (6.7)- (12.2) (23.8) (17.7) (39.0) (100) -

Chi Square: p=.874

The results are as follows; there were no 12 year olds in the sample who

committed a subsequent offence, compared to 18.2% of 13 year olds, 15.0% of

14 year olds, 23.1 % of 15 year olds, 27.6% of 16 year olds and 18.8% of 17 year

olds. An increasing trend appears to be occurring. In other words. as youths

become older, the frequency of reoffending increases, up until the age of 17, where there is a slight decreases in recidivism. Nonetheless the effect of age

on recidivisrn is not significant, p=.874. Reasons for this may be that the

rnajority of youths are reaching the point where they are no longer classified as young offenders, but adult offenders. Perhaps this may deter older youths from

taking their first steps into the adult justice system.

Effect of Sex on Recidivism

I hypothesized that males are more likely to reoffend than fernales. A

crosstabulation was run for recidivism (Y6) by sex (X2) of the young offender, to

determine the effect of sex on recidivism. Table 4.7 presents the frequencies

and percentages of recidivism (Y6),based on sex of the young offender (X2).

fable 4.7: Recidivism by Sex

;

~requenc~Frequency - (Oh) (%) 31 3 34 REOFFENCE (27.0) (6-1 (20.7) 84 46 130 NO REOFFENCE (73.0) (93.9) (79.3) 115 49 164 Column Total (70.1) (29.9) (100)

Chi Square: p=.003

Sex proved to be statistically significant, p=.003, where 27.0% of males committed a subsequent offence, compared to 6.1 1 of female young offenders.

A further crosstabulation was run, this time controlling for whether or not the youth was charged for their first offence. Table 4.8 presents the frequencies and percentages of recidivism (Y6), based on sex (X3), controlling for whether or not

a charge was laid (Y2).

Table 4.8: Recidivism by Sex by Charge Laid

FIRST TlME OFFENDERS: CHARGE0

1 Frequency Frequency j (36) (%) 17 2 19 : REOFFENCE (32.7) (11 .l) (27.1) 35 16 51 NO REOFFENCE j (67.3) (88.9) (72.9) 52 18 70

, Column Total : (74.3) -. (25.7) (100)

Chi Square: p=.076

For those who were charged for their first offence, 32.7% of males, committed a subsequent offence, compared to only 11.1 % of females. To collapse this even further, 15.4% of males committed one subsequent offence compared to 1 1.1% of fernales, and 9.6%, 1.9%, 3.8%, and 19% of males committed 2, 3, 5, and 7 subsequent offences, respectively. There were no females in the charged group who committed more than one reoffence.

Nonetheless. the effed of sex on rates of reoffending for the charged group is not statistically significant, p=.076. Although it approaches a level of significance of .05,there appears to be no significant difference among rates of reoffending between males and females who were charged. ! Frequency Frequemy I ; (%) (%) 14 1 15

REOFFENCE : (22.2) (3-2) (16.0) 49 30 79 NO REOFFENCE ; (77.8) (96-8) (84.0) 63 31 94 Column Total : (67.0) (33.0) (100)

Chi Square: pa.018

For youths in the diverted group, 22.2% of males reoffended compared to only 3.2% of females. To break this down even further 14.3% of males committed one subsequent offence, compared to 3.21 of females. 3.2%. and

4.8% of males committed 2 and 3 subsequent offences, respectively. There wre no females in the diverted group who comrnitted more than one reoffence.

The effect of sex on rates of reoffending for the diverted group is statistically significant, p=.018. Therefore, when the sample was collapsed into those who were charged and those who were diverted for their first offence, there appears to be only a significant difference among rates of reoffending between males and females in the diverted group. Nonethetess, on a whole, there is a statistically significant difference arnong rates of reoffending between males and females. Effect of Area of Residence on Recidivism

I hypothesized that youths from large sale communities were more likeiy

to reoffend than youths from srnail scale cornmunities. A crosstabulation was

nin to detemine the effect of each of the five areas within Halton; Burlington

(X3), Oakville (X4), Milton (X5). Georgetown (X6), and Acton (XI), on recidivism

(Y6). Table 4.9 presents the frequencies and percentages of recidivism (Y6).

based on the area in which the youth resides (X3, X4, X5. X6, X7).

Table 4.9: Recidivism by Area of Residence

Reotience : (20.0) (31.0) (23.1 ) (11.8) . (O) (8.3) (20.7) ; No 36140 IO 15 7 22 130 (80.0) (69.0) (76.9) (88.2) (100) (91.7) (79.3) Column 45 58 13 17 7 24 164 Total -- . (27.4) , (35.4) (7.9) (10.4) (4.3) (14.6) -(100) +

Chi Square: p=.145

The results are as follows; 20% of youths residing in Burlington cornmitted

a subsequent offence, wmpared to 31 .O% of youths residing in Oakville, 23%

residing in Milton. 11-8% of youths residing in Georgetowm, and 8.3% residing

outside of Halton Region. However, the effect of the area in which a youth

resides on recidivism, is not statisticalty significant. with a p value of -145. Surnmary of Results

The object of bivariate analysis is to assess the relationship between two variables to detemine how much effect one variable has on another. Only two variables in the model proved to have a statistically significant effect on recidivism (Y6), those being seriousness of the first offence (Y1), p=.050, and sex of the young offender (X2),p=.003. Although the majority of the finding were not statistically significant, one must wnsider that bivariate analysis does not take into account the interplay of other variables in the model. On the other hand, multivariate analysis, specifically multiple regression, measures the direction and size of the effect of each variable on a dependent variable. In other words, multiple regression cm see how al1 of the variables in the model simultaneously affect the dependent variable wntrolling for the effects of one another. Furthemore, multiple regression shows how wll a set of variables explains the variance in the dependent variable. A good model with several independent variables should explain a large percentage of the variation in the dependent variable. The remainder of this chapter deais with rnultivariate analysis. MULTWARIATE ANALYSIS

Criteria for Trimming Coefficients from the Model

There are tw methods which cm be used for dropping negligible paths

or trimming coefficients from the model, the statistical method and the absolute

value method. The former entails dropping paths whose t value is not significant. The problern with this method is that you end up retaining negligible paths Menyou have a large sample. Therefore, the latter method was used as criterion for trimming coefficients from the model. The absolute value rnethod entails setting an absolute value or a cut off value for Beta. However, as a cut off value set too high will result in dropping too many paths, therefore, the absolute value was set at -10,a standard cut off value (Singleton, Straits and

Straits, 1993).

Table 4.10 and 4.1 1 represent the path regression coefficients (b) and the path coefficients (p), along with their standard errors, for the Just ldentified and

Over ldentified Model, respectively. Only those paths whose Beta value is equal to or greater than -10 will be discussed.

Coefficients (direct effects) for the Over ldentified Model

Equation 1

With seriousness of the first offence (YI ) as the dependent variable, age

(XI), Burlington (X3), and Milton (X5) wre regressed on YI. I found that as the aga of the young offender increases, the seriousness of the first offence decreases, -.258. Furthemore, I found that as you move from the surrounding areas of Halton (reference category), toward Burlington and Milton, specifically, the seriousness of the first offence decreases, -. 147, and -. 31 5, respectively.

Female (X2), Oakville (X4), Georgetown (X6), and Acton (X7) were trimmed from the model, indicating no direct effect between these variables and seriousness of the first offence.

Equation 2

With number of charges associated w*ththe first offence (Y2) as the dependent variable, age (XI), female (X2), Burlington (X3), Oakville (X4), Milton

(X5), and Georgetown (X6) were regressed on Y2. I found that as the age of the young offender increases, the number of charges laid for the first offence also increases, .428. Furthemore, I found that fernales are more likely to be charged for the first offence than males, .105. Finally, as you move from the surrounding areas of Halton (reference category) toward Burlington. Oakville, Milton, and

Georgetown, specifically, the nurnber of charges laid for the first offence increases, -490, .455, 467, and -501, respectively. Acton (X7) and seriousness of the first offence (Y1 ) were trimmed from the model, indicating no direct effects between these variables and the number of charges laid for the first offence. Equation 3

With severity of the disposition for the first offence (Y3) as the dependent

variable, female (XZ), Milton (X5), Georgetown (X6), seriousness of the first

offence (YI) and number of charges laid for the first offence (Y2) wre regressed

on Y3. I found that females are more likely to be sentenced than males, .167.

Furthemore, I found that as you move from the surrounding areas of Halton

(reference category) toward Georgetown, specifically, the severity of the

disposition for the first offence increases, .322. In addition, as seriousness of

the first offence increases, severity of the disposition for the first offence

decreases, -.181. Finally, as the number of charges laid for the first offence

increases, severity of the disposition also increases. 597. Age (XI ). Burlington

(X3), Oakville (X4) and Acton (X7) were trirnmed from the model, indicating no

direct effects between these variables and the severity of the disposition for the

first offence.

Equation 4

With seriousness of the first reoffence (Y4) as the dependent variable,

age (XI). female (X2), Burlington (X3), Oakville (X4), Milton (X5), number of

charges laid for the first offence (Y2) and severity of the disposition for the first

offenœ (Y3) ware regressed on Y4. I found that as age of the young offender

increases, seriousness of the first reoffence decreases, -. 174. In addition, as you move away from the surrounding areas of Halton (reference category), toward Burlington and Oakville, specifically, seriousness of the first reoffence

decreases, -. 110, and -. 101, respectively. Likewise, as the number of charges

laid for the first offence increases, seriousness of the first offence decreases, -

.415. Finally, as severity of the disposition for the first offence increases,

seriousness of the first reoffence also increases, -190. Milton (X5), Georgetown

(X6), Adan (X7), and seriousness of the first offence (Y1) were trimmed from the

model, indicating no direct effect of these variables on seriousness of the first

reoffence.

Equation 5

With severity of the disposition for the first reoffence (Y5) as the dependent variable, female (XZ), Burlington (X3), Milton (X5), Georgetown (X6), number of charges laid for the first offence (Y2). and seriousness of the first reoffence (Y4) were regressed on Y5. I found that fernales are less likely to receive harsher sentences than males, for subsequent offences, -. 189.

Furthenore, as you move from the surrounding areas of Halton (reference category), toward Burlington, and Georgetown, severity of the disposition decreases, -.270,and -.313, respectively. However, as you move toward Milton, severity of the disposition for the first reoffence increases, .424. Finally, as the number of charges laid for the first offence, and seriousness of the first reoffence increases, severity of the disposition for the first reoffenœ also increases, 258, and -121,respectively. Age (XI ), Oakville (X3), Acton (X7), seriousness of the first offence (Y1) and severity of disposition for the first offence(Y3) were

trimmed frorn the model, indicating no direct effects between these variables and

severity of the disposition for the fint reoffence.

Equation 6

With recidivisrn (Y6) as the dependent variable, female (X2), Burlington

(X3). Oakville (X4), Milton (X5), Georgetown (X6), seriousness of the first offence (Y1), number of charges laid for the first offence (Y2), disposition for the first offenœ (Y3), seriousness of the first reoffence (Y4), and disposition for the first reoffence (YS) were regressed on Y6. I found that fernales are less likely to reoffend than males, -. 180. Furthemore, I found that youths residing in Halton region were more likely to reoffend within that region than youths residing outside of Halton. Nonetheless, an interesting pattern develops vvithin the region. Youths residing in Burlington, Oakville and Georgetown (larger communities) are more likely to reoffend, -274, .306,.719, than youths residing in Milton or Acton (smaller communities), -147, and 0, respectively.

Moreover, it was found that, as the seriousness of the first offence increases, the risk of reoffending also increases, .203. As the number of charges laid for the first offence increases, the risk of reoffending also increases,

.129. However, as the severity of the disposition for the first offence increases, recidivism decreases, -.117. Nonetheless, as the seriousness of the first reoffence and the severity of the disposition for the first reoffence increases, the risk of persistent reoffending increases, .109. and -131,respectively. Equation 6 is the basis of this study and will be diswssed in more detail in the remainder of this thesis. Table 4.10: Coefficients (direct effects) for the Just ldentified Model

Debendent Variables

(-115) ' (-211) (-131) (.200) (-179) (-153)- X2 Female .1 74 .O77 280 - 103 .787 1 63 (.454) (.201) (-504) (-186). (.635) (-131) X3 Burlington -.207 -. 142 .865 ,494 .O08 .O03 - -- (.536) (368) (-595) (-340) (-776) (-248) X4 Oakville -. 003 -. 002 -712 -455 -120 .O43 (Si5) (-395) (-570) (364) (-735) (-263)

X5 Milton -,940 -,346 1-587 -486 -676 -116 (-778) (-286) (-885)' (-271) (1 -177) (-202) X6 Georgetown -.O71 -. 026 1 642 .503 2.034 -349 (-688) (-253) (-762) (-233) (1.038) (. 178) X7 Acton O O O O O O (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) Y1 Seriousness ,033 .O27 -. 362 -. 169 of first offence (.217) (. 181 ) (-272) (.127) Y2 Charge laid 1.165 .567 for first offence (.250) 11401 + ___--_ l__l-____------CI------Y3 Disposition for first offence --- Y4 Seriousness of - -- first reoffence-______-__- ______--___- --- _ Y5 Disposition for first offence Y6 Recidivism

R2 = -119 ,282 .661 F = -586 1.403 5.850

Sig F = , -739 .248 .O00

SE = ' -686 -759 ' .950 Table 4.10 (cont'd): Coefficients (direct effects) for the Just ldentified Model

ûependent Variables

b'B b 'B.- b B

(SE b) ' (SE p) (SE b) (SE f.3) (SE b) (Se p) XI Age -. 128 -.203 .O38 .O31 .O16 .O13 (. 1 52) (-242) (.292) (226) (-254) (.216) X2 Female -277 -106 -1 .O86 -.202 -.879 -. 179 (. 554) (213) (1.053) (. 196) (.938) (. 191)

X3 Burlington -,177 -.IO5 -1.148 d.331 -875 -276 (.656) X4 Oakville -11 57 (. 622) XS Milton -.249 (1 -003) X6 Georgetown -222 . (-946) ' X7 Acton O (0) - YI Seriousness of 416 first offence (-2381 ------Y2 Charge laid for -.383 first offence (-275) Y3 Disposition for .O83 firstoffence (-173)- Y4 Seriousness of first reoïfence YS Disposition for first offence Y6 Recidivisrn

Sig F = .757 -339 -205 SE = -804 1.518 1-322 Table 4.1 1: Coefficients (direct effects) for aie Over ldentified Yodel-

i (SE b) , (SE p) (SE b) j (SE pl i (SE b) . (se B) ' i -.140 1 -.258 -280 i -428 ! O O i (.log) (.200) (-125) i (-191) j (O) (0) Female ioo -286 1 -105 -806 167

-- - .- -- Burlington : (-261) (-179) (-582) (-332) (O) (0)

oie -713 j -455 : O O

: X5 Milton

. .. i X6 Georgetown i O O i.640 -501 , 1.878 .322 (O) (O) (-747) (.229) (-685) (-117) ' . - . --* - -.-- -7 ------i X7 Acton ioio O:O'O O I : (0) : (0) (0) ; (O) i (O) (0) i YI Seriousness of ' O O -.389 -.181 i , first offence i + (0) ; (0) (.248) (-116) i Y2 Charge laid for : 1.066 -597 , first mence

: - +------_------_---A-.-..-.-.d ~l2!_!-.1-..- (l-118L + Y3 Disposition for : firstoffence Y4 Seriousnsss of first reoffence ? * --.----e------YS Disposition for . first offence -- Y6 Recidivism .

. - R2= i -113 1 281 i -655 F = j 1.232 1 1.696 i 1 10.265 Sig F = : .316 : .162 j .O00 SE = ,652 i -745 i t .903 II II - Table 4.1 1 (cont'd): Coefficients (direct effects) for the Over ldentified Model

Dewndent Variables

i (-446) , (.265) (-582) (.168) (1O) (.339) ' X4 Oakville -. 153 -. 101 O O .865 .306 (-990) (-350) r -(.392) (.26O) (0) (0) ' X5 Milton O O 2.74 -424 -866 1 47 (0) - (0) (1.1 13) (. 172) (1-476) (.250) : X6 Georgetown : O O -2.022 -.313 4.245 .719

(0) ; (0) (0) (0) ; (0) (O) : ! Y1 Seriousness of O0O 9 -440 -203 first offence (0) (0).(0) (O) (. 378) (-1 74)

' Y2 Charge laid for 400 -.415 .510 .258 .231 129 fint offence (.252) (.262) (-357) (381) (-460) (.254) : y3 Disposition for ' .I 02 - .1 90 O O -.Il8 -.I 17 first offence (. 147) (.272) (0) (O) (-277) (.274) : Y4 Seriousness of : .248 -121 .204 .IO9 first reoffence , (. 358) (. 174) (. 332) (. 177) Y5 Disposition for -120 -131 first offence (-181) (-19%- Y6 Recidivism

- RZ= -190 .347 1 ,439 F = 1.015 . 2.301 1.725

( Sig 'F = i ,437 : ,065 Y .A38 SE = 'i .760 i 1.405 i 1.292 Effect of Number of Charges Laid for the First Offence on Recidivism

I predicted that the charging and diversionary practices of the police would have a significant effect on whether or not a youth would reoffend. I hypothesized that youths who were charged during their initial enwunter with police were more likely to reoffend than youths not charged by police. The effect of number of charges laid for the first offence (Y2)on recidivism (Y6) is .129, indicating that as the number of charges laid for the first offence increases, the risk of reoffending also increases. In other words, youths who are charged for their first offence, are more likely to reoffend than youths not charged by police.

Furthemore, a number of small indirect effects wre found. The mode1 indicaies that there is an indirect effed of nurnber of charges laid for the first offence (Y2) on recidivism (Y6), -.073,via severity of the disposition for both the first offence (Y3) and first reoffence (YS), and seriousness of the first reoffence

(Y4). The effect of number of charges laid (Y2) on disposition (Y3) is 597, indicating that as the number of chargesassociated with the first offence (Y2) increases the severity of the disposition for the first offence (Y3) also increases.

Furthemore the effect of number of charges laid for the first offence (Y2) on seriousness of the first reoffence (Y4), is -.415, indicating that as the number of charges associated with the first offence (Y2) increases, the seriousness of the first reoffence (Y4) decreases. Effect of Seriousness of the First Offence on Recidivism

I hypothesized that as seriousness of the first offence increased, the risk of reoffending would also increase. The effect of seriousness of the first offence

(Y1) on recidivism (Y6) is .203,indicating that as seriousness of the first offence increases, the risk of reoffending does in fact increase. In addition, the mode1 indicates a very srnall indirect effect between seriousness of the first offence

(YI) and recidivism (Y6), -017, via severity of the disposition for the first offence

W3)-

Effect of-Severity of the Disposition for the First Offence on Recidivism

I hypothesized that as severity of the disposition for the first offence increased, the risk of reoffending would also increase. There is a negative effect between severity of the disposition for the first offence (Y3) and recidivism (Y6),

-. 11 7. This indicates that severity of the disposition actually has an inverted effect on recidivism. Therefore, harsh sentencing does not increase the risk of reoffending, it adually acts as a deterrent to recidivism. Furthemore, the mode1 indicates that there is a very srnaIl indirect effect of severity of the disposition

(Y3) on recidivism (Y6). .024, via seriousness of the first reoffence (Y4). Effect of Age on Recidivism

I hypothesized that older youths mre more likely to reoffend than younger youths. Age (XI) was the only variable that was trimmed from the final model. This indicates that there is no direct effect of age on subsequent offending patterns, and the hypothesis that older youths are more likely to reoffend than younger youths, is not empirically supported. Nonetheless, there were a nurnber of indirect effects of age (XI) on recidivisrn (Y6).The model indicates that there is an indirect effect of age (XI) on recidivism (Y6). via seriousness of the first offence (Yi), number of charges laid for the first offence

(Y2)and seriousness of the first reoffence (Y4), most of which is attributed to the number of charges laid for the first offence (Y2). The effect of age (Xi) on number of charges laid for the first offence (Y2) is -428, indicating that older youths are more likely to be charged than younger youths. As age increases, the number of charges associated with an offence also increases.

Effect of Sex on Recidivisrn

I hypothesized that males were more likely to reoffend than females. The effect of sex (X2) on recidivism (Y6) is -.180, which indicates that females are iess likely to reoffend than males. In addition, a number of indirect effects of sex

(X2)on recidivism (Y6) wrefound. The model indicates there is a very small, negative indirect effect of sex (X2)on recidivism (Y6), 0.026, via the number of charges associated with the first offence (Y2),severity of the disposition for both the first offence (Y3) and the first reoffence (Y5), and seriousness of the first reoffence (Y4), most of which is attributed to the severity of the disposition for the first reoffence (Y5).

Effect of Area of Residence on Recidivism

I hypothesized that youths from larger communities were more likely to reoffend than youths from smaller comrnunities. The model illustrates that area of residence, including, Burlington (X3). Oakville (X4). Milton (XS), and

Georgetown (X6), has a direct effect on recidivism (Y6). .274, .306, -147, and

.719, respectively, indicating that youths residing in Halton region are more apt to reoffend within that region. compared to youths residing outside that region

(reference category). Furthenore, the strength of the association between

Georgetown (-719), Oakville (.306),and Burlington (-274). indicates that youths

Moreside in larger communities are more likely to reoffend than those who reside in smaller communities. Although there is a direct effect between Milton and recidivism, the strength of this association is weak. Furthemore, Acton (X7) was trimmed from the model, as there were no youths from Acton who committed a subsequent offence.

In addition, a number of indirect effects were found. There is an indirect effect between Burlington (X3), Oakville (X4), Milton (X5). and Georgetown (X6) on recidivism (Y6). -.055,.O1 2, .008,and -.043,respectively. The indirect effect of area of residence (XI, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6) on recidivism (Y6). is particularly attributed to the number of charges laid for the first offence (Y2), for all of the four aforernentioned areas.

Effect of Seriousness of the First Reoffence on Recidivism

I hypothesized that as seriousness of the first reoffence increased, the risk of persistent reoffending would also increase. The effect of seriousness of the first reoffence (Y4)on recidivisrn (Y6) is -109, indicating that seriousness of subsequent offences has a direct effect on persistent redfending. Furkhermore, the mode1 indicates a very small indirect effect between seriousness of the first reoffence (Y4) and recidivism (Y6), via severity of the disposition with the first reoffence (Y5), -016.The effect of seriousness of the first reoffence(Y4) on disposition for the first reoffence (Y5) is -121, indicating that as seriousness of the first reoffence increases, severity of the disposition for this offence also increases.

Effect of Severity of the Disposition for the Fiist Reoffence on Recidivism

I hypothesized that as severity of the disposition for the first reoffence increased, the risk of persistent reoffending would also increase. The effect of seventy of the disposition for the first reoffence (Y5)on recidivism (Y6) is -131, indicating that severity of the disposition for the first reoffence has a direct effect on persistent reoffending. Interestingly, this relationship is positive in cornparison to the negative relationship between the severity of the disposition for the first offence and recidivism. Perhaps the initial disposition acts as a strong deterrent in the sense that it may scare some young offenders from reoffending, however, any subsequent dispositions may not have the same detenent effect. The second time around may not be so frightening. SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Table 4.12: Oecomposition of Effects for Y6

Sex -. 180 -.O26 -206 -.212 -. 197 .O1 5 x2

Burlington .274 -.O54 .220 -.O95 -. 092 .O03 X3

Milton 1 47 .O08 -155 -.O61 -.O68 -. 007 XS

: Georgetown -719 -. 043 676 -562 563 .O01

X6 -_____.___L______~I.-

Acton 0 0 0 0 0 0 X7 Seriousness of first offence .203 .O17 -220 1 95 224 .O29 Y1 ------

Charge laid -129 -.O73 .O56 ,161 1 66 .O05 Y2

: Disposition for first offence -.Il7 ,024 -.O93 .17A 1 74 .O03 _-Y3 -- - - Seriousness of first reoffence 1 09 .O16 -125 .O81 .Il2 .O31 Y4

: Disposition for first reofknce 131 O .A31 .O01 .O0 1 O Y5 ;.... _ .. __._____ .___.___ . . _ ... . _ __.___.. _ _ _ -___ ._..----...... LL-. - - - -.- . .- . -- . . . .- .- --.------'. .. . ' Recidivism 0 0 0 .993 1-000 .O07 Y6 Table 4.12 presents the decomposition of effects for recidivism (Y6). In this particular case the indirect effects were so small that that they did not influence the total effects nearly as much as the direct effects. Nonetheless,

Georgetown (Y6) has the largest total affect on recidivism (Y6),-676. followed by

Oakville, (X4), -318, Burlington, (X3). .220, seriousness of the first offence (Y1 ),

.220,sex (X2), -.206,Milton (X5), -155, severity of the disposition for the first reoffence (Y5), .131, seriousness of the first reoffence (Y4). -125,severity of the disposition for the first offence (Y3), -.093,number of charges associated vvith the first offence (Y2), -056,and age (Xi), -.O55

Furthemore, the residual wrrelations for al1 of the variables in the model were very small, indicating that there is not much difference behnieen the rnodel irnplied correlations and the observed wrrelations. In fact there was no difference between the model implied and observed wrrelations for severity of the disposition for the first reoffence (Y5), followed by Georgetown (X6). -001,

Oakville (X4), -.002,Burlington (X3) and severity of the disposition for the first offence (Y3), both .003,number of charges laid for the first offence (Y2) and age

(XI ), both -005,recidivism (Y6), -007,Milton (X5). -.007,sex (X2), -015, seriousness of the first offence (Y1 ), -029,and seriousness of the first reoffence,

.031. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

1 began this thesis with the concern that the police, in their role as gatekeepers of the Criminat Justice System, play a significant role in directing youths into a delinquent career. This thesis has focused on the charging and diversionary practices of the police, and the interplay of other variables as a predictors of recidivism among young offenders. The purpose of this chapter is to further discuss the findings, and their significance within the theoretical frarnework of labeling and interactionism.

Effect of Seriousness of the First Offence on Recidivism

The regression analysis indicates that there is a direct effect of seriousness of the first offence on recidivism, .203.Tharefore, the findings support the hypothesis that youths who commit and are subsequently charged with more serious offences, the first tirne around, are more likely to reoffend.

However, what are the implications of the seriousness of offence? Do departmental policies specify under what conditions a charge must be laid, or does the use of police discretion have a more significant impact on who is charged?

The official delinquent, one who has been formally charged by the police, as distinguished from the youth who ssimply cammits an offence, is the product of a social judgment, made by law enforcement officials, but stemming from society at large. and the role of police as reactors. as discussed earlier. A youth becomes a delinquent because someone in a position of authority has defined him or her as such. However, it has been argued that although the application of this label is based on the seriousness of the offence, and previous offence history, other factors such as the demeanor of the youth. more often than the offence he or she has wmrnitted, affects the application of this stigmatizing label

(Mastrofski, Worden, and Snipes, 1995; Hagan, 1972; Black and Reiss, 1967;

Bordua, 1967; Pilivian and Briar, 1964).

It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the departmental policies of Halton Regional Police and the use of discretion. However, it is fair to say that the official policy justifying the use of discretion poses problems in itself. In other wrds, the focus tends to shift from the offence to the offender. Youths are often charged based on their demeanor. rather than the offence they have wmmitted (Black and Reiss, 1967; Bordua, 1967; Piliavin and Briar, 1964).

In each encounter with a youth, the central task confronting law enforcement officials is to decide the best course of action, not only for the youth, but for society at large. Nonetheless, charging is not based solely on the type of offence wmmitted, regardless of departmental policy, which generally states that youths committing certain offences must be charged. Many studies to date have focuseci on the origin of the label, namely the application of this label by the police, yet have failed to take into account the consequences of this label. Thus the question remains, not what affects the police decision to charge, but what are the consequences of this label of official delinquent or young ofiendep Do the charging and diversionary practices of the police in fact have an impact on the future offending patterns of youths? If so what are the implications of this label?

Effect of Number of Charges Laid for the First Offence on Recidivism

The findings of this study affin this impeding question. Youths who have been charged by the police are in fact more likely to reoffend than youths who ultimately bypass the process of labeling. The regression analysis showed a direct effect of the nurnber of charges associated with the first offence on recidivisrn. .lZX Thus, the findings do in fact support the hypothesized prediction that the risk of reoffending increases with an increase in the number of charges associated with the first offence.

Nonetheless, this variable alone is not signifiant in predicting recidivisrn.

Common sense muld dictate that youths who commit more serious offences are more likely to be charged by the police. However, the findings do not support this assumption. Seriousness of the first offence has no direct effect on whether or not a charge is laid. Reasons for this may be associated with the methodology or the way the variables were coded. The findings indicate that youths who commit more serious offences the first time around are no more likely to be charged than youths who commit less serious offences. What the findings do not show is charging patterns within each level of seriousness. In

other words, it would be plausible to assume that within each category of

offence, those who commit more serious offences are more likely to be charged.

For example, youths who commit more serious property related offences, such as breaking and entering, are more likely to be charge than youths who commit

less serious property related offences, such as theft under $1000. Furthemore, it wuld be plausible to assume that the majority of first time offenders commit property related offences. Therefore, future studies would benefit from comparing charging patterns within each category of offence, because, in essence, police are more likely to react to serious transgressions, than minor transgressions, regardless of the nature of the offence.

Effect of Severity of the Disposition for the First ûffence on Recidivisrn

The next concem that anses is the extent of the labeiing process. It was hypothesized that youths who receive harsher sentences, namely custodial dispositions, are more likely to reoffend. Howver, cornmon sense would argue that severe repercussions or dispositions should deter a youth from wmmitting subsequent offences, othenMse know as the deterrence theory. The mode1 indicates that there is a direct effect of severity of the disposition on recidivism.

-.117. However, this relationship is a negative one, thersfore the hypothesis that the risk of reoffending increases, as severity of the disposition associated with the first offence increases, is not empirically supported. In fact, these findings wn wunter to assertions made by labeling theorists.

Research in this area has focused primarily on the severity of the label and the internalization of a delinquent identity. A study conducted by Hackler

(1970) found strong empirical support for the notion that the perceptions of others and the internalization of the deviant label is a crucial variable in predicting recidivism. Institutionalization reinforces the criminal identity. Yet, according to the labeling perspective, in order for a youth to reoffend, he or she must intemalize the deviant identity. If a youth does not intemalize the deviant identity, between the time of arrest and the time of the disposition, looking at a possible time frame of several months, then the disposition will not have the anticipated cansequence of fostering more crime. In fad, the sandioning process should have the opposite effect, namely deterring the youth from wmmitting subsequent offences. It is regrettable, but such a measurement was not possible for this research. Nonetheless, other studies have demonstrated the empirical validity of the effect of the internalization of a deviant identity on recidivisrn. Kaplan and Damphousse (1997) found that youths with high levels of self-derogation often find the application of a stigmatizing label more alienating.

Thus, the individual continues dom a delinquent path. On the other hand, youths Ath low levels of self-derogation are seen as more capable of fending off the effect of the negative label. In other words, they are less likely to intemalize the deviant identity, hence are deterred. Kaplan and Damphousse (1997) found no empirical support of a deterrent effect of negative social sanctions, hence

suggest the intemalization of a deviant identity is the more likely outcorne.

Specifically, highly selfderogated individuals who are sanctioned appear to

engage in increased levels of deviance (the labeling effect), but the labeling

effect appears to be significantly stronger for youths with low levels of self-

derogat ion.

Social sanction are reactions by others to real or imagined behaviour of

an individual. Sanctions can serve as either rewards or punishments for the

behaviour, through either the intentions of othen or the perceptions of the

individual. I have discussed only one body of literature relating to the effect of

punishment on behaviour, the labeling perspective, which asserts that labeling

cm have the unintended consequence of fostering the very bevaviour it meant to deter, through the internalization of a deviant identity. A competing body of

literature known as the deterrence theory, argues that punishment does in fact

deter people from repeating the crimes for which they have already been

punished (Kaplan and Damphousse, 1997).

Pehaps Tittle (1975) put is best when he wrote 'sanctioning sometimes

produces deterrence, sometimes leads to secondary deviance, sometimes does

both, and sometimes does neither (p.408)." Nonetheless, he did offer several

possible conditions under wbich negative social sanctions or labeling might

result in escalation or deterrence. First, is the type of nom, which favoun the

labeling perspective. In other words, labeling a deviant who has violated a more serious nom tends to increase the risk of recidivism, than labeling someone for violating a minor offence. Second, Tittle (1975) argues that members of different racial or ethnic groups, even different sexes respond differently to labels. Other conditions include the type of sanction applied, whether the deviant act is the first, second, third or tenth violation, the makeup of the cornrnunity, and finally, and of utmost importance is how the person labeled perceives the effects of the label.

Effect of Seriousness of the First Reoffence on Persistent Reoffending

What links the labeling theory to the analysis of social control agencies, specifically, the police, is the decision making process employed in the handling of young offenders. As a youth is processed through the various stages of the

Criminal Justice System, decisions are made that influence the direction a youths delinquent career will take. "As key gatekeepers of the youth justice systern, it is primarily the police who detemine the number of youths entering the system and the types of cases dealt with by the courts (Carrington et al.,

1994, p.2)."

Becker (1963) argued that "one of the most crucial steps in the process of building a stable pattern of deviant behaviour is likely to be the experience of bei~gcaught and publicly labeled as deviant (p.31)." The findings support this assumption postulated by labeling theorists. However, what are the implications of subsequent labeling on persistent reoffending? It was hypothesized that labeling associated with subsequent reoffending will have an effect on persistent reoflending. The regression analysis indicated a direct path between seriousness of the first reoffence and recidivism, .109.

Therefore, the findings support the hypothesis that as seriousness of the first reoffence increases, the risk of persistent reoffending also increases. As diswssed previously, youths who commit more serious offences are more likely to be charged, hence the process of labeling continues. Furthemore, if a youth does in fact internalize this identity, then the reinforcement of this label by police, and other agents of social control, for subsequent offending, will intensify the identity, and ultimately lead the youth down a delinquent path.

Effect of Severity of the Disposition for the First Reoffence on Persistent Reoffending

The findings proved that severity of the disposition for the first offence does not act as a reinforcing agent of the labeling process. 1s this true of the severity of the disposition for subsequent offences?

It was hypothesized that the risk of persistent reoffending increases as severity of the disposition for subsequent offences increases. There is a direct effect of severity of the disposition on recidivism, -131. Therefore, the findings support the hypothesized prediction that as severity of the disposition for the first reoffence increases, the risk of persistent reoffending also increases. The concern is thus directed toward the deterrent effect of the initial disposition and the reinforcing effect on recidivism for subsequent dispositions. Why is this true of subsequent dispositions, but not the initial disposition? One reason may be that the initial disposition ads as a strong deterrent for youths who do not intemalize the delinquent identity. However, for those who do, the severity of the disposition acts as a reinforcing agent.

Effect of Sex on Recidivism

This argument can further be tied into sex differences. It was hypothesized that males are more likely to reoffend than females. The findings suggest a direct relationship between sex and recidivism, -. 180. The negative value is associated with the rnanner in wtiich this variable was coded. Males were used as the reference category, therefore the negative value is associated with a decrease in the risk of reoffending among females. Therefore, this hypothesis is empirically supported.

Reasons for difference between the sexes rnay include the fact that males and females are socialized differently (Miâwinter, 1992; Wheelan and Verdi,

1992; Barry, Bacon and Child, 1957),and respond differently to the labeling process (Tittle, 1975). Perhaps fernale adolescents feel the need to fit in more than males. Therefore, females be more apt to fight the stigrnatization.

Whereas, males may use this label as a means of bragging, which rnay be affinned further by their peers. Nonetheless, this issue is an entire thesis on its own. The point here is simply to make suggestions for future research. Effect of Area of Residence on Recidivism

Although the area in which a youth resides, has little theoretical foundation, some interesting findings were evident. I predicted not only that the application of a stigmatizing label would differ between communities, but that the wnsequences of the label would also differ between youths residing in larger communities compared to those residing in smaller communities. i hypothesized that youths residing in large scale communities were more likely to be labeled, hence more likely to reoffend, than youths from small scale communities. The findings provide empirical support for this hypothesis. Although each area vvithin

Halton, with the exception of Acton, had a direct effect on recidivism, there was a much stronger effect of larger communities (Burlington, .274, Oakville, .306,

Georgetown, .Tl 9) on recidivism, than smaller communities (Milton, .147, Acton,

0)-

Many small scale, rural communities are devoid of large cornpeting pressure groups with different values and consequently, many of the statuses and roles of labeling theorists such as moral entrepreneurs, generic labeling, deviant subcultures and deviant identities are absent in srnall scale rural communities (Brymer, 1991). Core concepts of the labeling perspective, such as the creation of deviance by labeling and secondary deviance have been constnicted on the basis of data drawn from cornplex societies. In small scale societies where there is much interdependence and strong interrelationships, there is a reluctance to label offenders as deviant. Deviance is 'soft' rather than 'hard' in the sense that it does not threaten the social order. ln rare cases of hard deviance, the labeling process occurs (Raybeck, 1991).

Suggestions for Future Research

What are the consequemes of a stigmatizing label? The process of labeling, and the intemalization of this label differs from one youth to another.

The mode! ernployed for this study, delineating this process as a predictor of recidivism was supported, and accounts for 44% of the variation in recidivism.

Pemaps the question for future researchers is Mat variables account for the rernaining 56% of the variation in explaining recidivisrn?

What factors are associated with the intemalization of a deviant identity?

Why do some youths accept and identify with the deviant status, hence continue ta offend, whereas, others fight the process of labeling, and their deviant career cornes to a halt. Becker (1963) argues that, the labeling process could go in either direction. Although the primary position of the labeling perspective remains that an individual's 'subsequent deviant behaviour is diredly and significantly affected by the labeling process (Akers, 1997, p. 101 )," societal reaction in the fonof the application of a stigmatizing label may actually deter a youth from engaging in subsequent delinquency. Nonetheless, this is a plausible question for future research.

Perhaps some fom of field research on policedelinquent encounters. which follows the youth for a deteminant period of time and records offending patterns of each youth, but most importantly, wnducts follow up interviews with youths in the study, regarding the intemakation of the identity, and its role in the process of labeling and subsequent offending, would be beneficial to the study of criminology. Perhaps interviews may be a better test of labeling, where a cornparison of youths perceptions can be empirically tested. REFERENCE LIST

Akers, R.L. 1 997 Criminological Theories: introduction and Evaluation. Los Angeles, Roxbury Publishing Co.

Bala, N. 1994 What's Wrong with YOA Bashing? What's Wrong witb the YOA?- Recognizing the Limits of the Law. Canadian Joumal of Criminology, Jdy, 247-270.

Barry, H, Bacon, M.K. and Child, I.L. 1957 A Cross-cultural Survey of Some of the Sex Oifferences in Socialization. Joumal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 327-333.

Becker, H.S. 1963 Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press.

Black, D.J. and Reiss, A. J. 1970 Police Control of Juveniles. American Sociological Review, 35, 63-77.

Sordua, D.J. 1969 Recent Trends: Deviant Behaviour and Social Control. Annals of the American Academy, 369,149-1 63.

Carrington, P.J. 1994 Has Violent Youth Crime Increased? Comment on Corrado and Markwart. Canadian Joumal of Criminology, January, 61 -93.

Carrington, P.J. and Moyer, S. 1994 Trends in Youth Crime and Police Response, Pre- and Post- YOA. Canadian Joumal of Criminology, January, 1-28.

Chambliss, W.J. 1964 A Sociological Analysis of the Law of Vagrancy. Social Problems, 12(summer), 67-77. Cicourel, A. 1968 The Social Organization of Juvenile Justice. New York, John Wiley and Sons.

Corrado, R.R. and Markwart, A. 1994 The Need to Refom the YOA in Response to Violent Young Onenden: Confusion, Myth or Reality? Canadian Journal of Criminology, July, 343-378.

Cooley, C.H. 1902 Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribner.

Doherty, G. and de Souza, P. 1995 Recidivism in Youth Courts, 1993-94. Juristat, 15(16), 1-20.

Doige, D. 1990 Young Offenders. Canadian Social Trends, Autumn, 1 1-1 4.

Farrington, D.P. 1997 The Effect of Public Labeling. British Joumal of Criminology, 17, 112-1 25.

Ferdinand, T. N. and Luchterhand, E.G. 1970 lnner City Youth, the Police, the Juvenile Court and Justice. Social Problems, 17, 51 0-527.

Gold, M. and Williams, J.R. 1969 The Effect of Getting Caught: Apprehension of the Juvenile Offender as a Cause of Subsequent Delinquency. Prospectus, 3, 1-12.

Gove, W.R. 1975 The Labeling of Deviance: Evaluating a Perspective. New York: Halstead.

Hackler, J-C. 1970 Testing of a Causal Model of Delinquency. Sociological Quarterfy, 11(Fall), 51 1-522.

Hagan, J. 1972 The Labeling Perspective, the Delinquent, and the Police: A Review of the Literature. Canadian Joumal of Criminology and Corrections, 1YApril), 150-1 65. Hagan, J. 1973a Conceptual Deficiencies of an Interactionist Perspective in Deviance. Criminology, 11(3), 383403.

Hagan, J. 1973b Labeling and Deviance: A Case Study in the "Sociology of the Interesting." Social Problems, 20(4), 448458.

Hagan, J. 1975 The Social and Legal Construction of Criminal Justice: A Study of the Presentencing Process. Social Problems, 22(5), 620437.

Hall, J. 1952 Theft, Law and Society. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co. Inc.

Hom&, A. and Wasserrnan, M. 1980 Some Misleading Conceptions in Sentencing Research: An Example and a Reforrnulation in the Juvenile Court. Criminology, 18(3), 41 1-424.

Hylton, J.H. 1994 Get Tough or Get Smart? Opinions for Canada's Youth Justice Systern in the Twenty-First Century. Canadian Journal of Criminology, July, 229-246.

Kaplan, H.B.and Damphousse, K.R. 1997 Negative Social Sanctions, Selfderogation, and Deviant Behaviour: Main and Interactive Effects in Longitudinal Perspective. Deviant Behaviour, 18(1), 1-26.

Klein, M.W. 1974 Labeling, Deterrence, and Recidivisrn: A Study of Police Dispositions Juvenile Offenders. Social Problems, 22, 292-303.

Klein, M. W. 1986 Labeling Theory and Delinquency Policy: An Experimental Test. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 13, 4-79.

Klemke, L.W. 1978 Does Apprehension for Shoplifting Ampl@ or Teminate Shoplifting Activity? Law and Society Review, 12, 391403. Landau, S.F. 1978 Do Legal Variables Predict Police Decisions Regarding the Prosecution of Juvenile Offenders? Law and Hurnan Behaviour, 2(2), 95-105.

Lemert, E. 1951 Social Pathology: A Systematic Approach to the Theory of Sociopathic Behaviour. New York: McGraw Hill.

Lemert, E. 1967 Human Deviance, Social Problems and Social Control. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Leschied, A.W., Jaffe, P.G. and Willis, W. 1991 The Young Onenders Act: A Revolution in Canadian Juvenile Justice. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Lilly, J.R., Cullen, F.T. and Ball, R.A. 1989 Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Manis J.G. and Meltzer, B.N. 1978 Introduction: lntellectual Antecedents and Basic Propositions of Symbolic Interactionism. In Manis, J. G. and Meltzer, B. N. (Eds. ), Symbolic Interaction: A reader in Social Psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc., 1-9.

Markwart, A. and Corrado, R.R. 1995 A Response to Canington. Canadian Journal of Criminology, Janwry, 7487.

Mastrofski, S.D.,Worden, R.E. and Snipes, J.B. 1995 Law Enforcement in a Time of Community Policing. Criminology, 33(4), 539-563.

McConnick, J. 1993 Two Kinds of Prisons. Journal of Prisoners on Prisons, 5,23-26.

Midwinter, DY. 1992 Rule Prescriptions for Initial Male-Female Interaction. Sex Roles, 26, 161-1 73.

Moyer, S. 1996 Report to the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Task Force on Youth Justice: A Profile of the Juvenile Justice System in Canada. Task Force on Youth Justice, November, 1-190. Ogrodnik, L. 1994 Canadian Crime Statistics, 1993. Juristat, 14(14), 1-24.

Palamara, F., Cullen, F.T. and Gersten, J-C. 1986 The Effect of Police and Mental Health Intervention on Juvenile Deviance: Specifying Contingencies in the Impact of Formal Reaction. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, Z?, 90-1 05.

Pfohl, S.J. 1985 Images of Deviance and Self Control: A Sociological History. New York: McGraw Hill.

Piliavin. 1. and Briar, S. 1964 Police Enwunters with Juveniles. Amencan Journal of Sociology, 70,206-2 14

Singleton, R.A.. Straits, P.C. and Straits, M.M. 1993 Approaches to Social Research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Tannenbaum, F. 1938 Crime and the Community. New York: Columbia University Press.

Thio, A. 1988 Deviant Behaviour. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.

Tittle, C. 1975 Deterrents or Labeling? Social Forces. 53, 399-41 0.

Wafd, D. and Tittle, C. 1993 Deterrence or Labeling: The Effects of Infornial Sanctions. Deviant Behaviour, 14,4344.

Warren, C.A.B. 1974 The Use of Stigmatizing Social Labels I Conventionalizing Deviant Behaviour. Sociology and Social Research, 58(3), 303-31 1.

Westley, W.A- 1955 Violence and the Police. American Journal of Sociology, 59, 3447.

Wheelan, S.A. and Verdi, A.F. 1992 Differences in Male and Fernale Patterns of Communication in Groups. Sex Roles, 27, 1-15.

109

CODEBOOK: Phase 1: (March 1994-Febniary 1995)

COI.1-3 Identification Number: 001-350

col -4 Gender: 1= male 2= female

COI.5-6 Race: 01 = white 02= non-white

col. 7% Date of Birth (month)

COI.9-10 Date of Birth (year)

COI. 1 1-13 Age in months (001-?)

col. 14 Address Zone 1= Burlington 2= Oakville 3= Milton 4= Georgetown 5= Acton 6= Toronto/Mississauga 7= Other

Type of Residence 1= apartment 2= house 3= townhouse

(9) col. 17 Does y.0. have an alias? 1= yes 2= no CURRENT OFFENCE

Date of offence (day) eg. 31 1294 (December 3 1,1994)

Date of offence (month)

Date of offence (year)

(13) col. 24 Was more than one charge laid? O= no charge laid (y.0. responsible) 1= yes 2= no

(14) ~1.25-27 Charge 1-Type of ûffence (use UCR 001-?)

(15) col. 28 Which of the following categories best describes charge 1? O= other 1= property offences 2= violent offences 3= violent- but assault leve 4= yoa related 5= dtug offences 6= offence against administration of law and justice 7= offence against personlreputation

(16) COI.29-31 Charge 2- Type of Offence (UCR code)

(17) col. 32 Which of the following categories best describes charge 2? O= other 1= property offences 2= violent offences 3= violent- but assault level 1 4= yoa related 5= dwg offences 6= offence against administration of law and justice 7= offence against personlreputation

Charge 3- Type of Offence (UCR code) (19) col. 36 Which of the following categories best describes charge 3? O= other 1= property offences 2= violent offences 3= violent- but assault level 1 4= yoa related 5= dnig offences 6= offence against the administration of law and justice 7= offence against personlreputation

(20) col. 37-39 Charge 4- Type of Offence (UCR code)

(21) ml. 40 Which of the following categories best describes charge 4? O= other 1 = property offences 2= violent offences 3= violent- but assault level 1 4= yoa related 5= dnig offences 6= offence against administration of law and justice 7= offence against person/reputation

(22) col. 41 43 Charge 5- Type of Offence (UCR code)

(23) col.44 Which of the following categories best describes charge 5? O= other 1= property offences 2= violent offences 3= violent- but assault level 1 4= yoa related 5= dmg offences 6= offence against administration of law and justice 7=offence against personlreputation (24) col. 46-57 Details of Charge(s): (Note: there is space to fiIl in 4 details for charge; if only one detail, fiIl remaining spaces Ath 888)

001= victim was accused parent 002= vidim was accused sibling 003= victirn was accused friend 004= no victirn 005= incident occurred at accused residence 006= incident occurred at school 007= incident occurred in a store 008= CO-accusedwas parent 009= CO-amsedwas sibling 01O= CO-accusedwas friend 01 1= damage to parents property 012= damage to school property 013= damage to store 014= shopliftingl value c 20$ 015= officers attended for noise cornplaint 016= no charge laid 017= incident occurred in restaurant 018= damage to restaurant 019= failure to appear (prints, court), failure to cornply with disposition 020= mischief causing danger to life 021= damage to friends property 022= darnage to vehicle 023= searched - no dnigs found 024= incident occurred in a car 025= victim was a stranger 026= injury to victim 027= escape custody 028= incident occurred at friends residence 029= removed articles From house 030= failure to appear after released on form 10 031 = y.0. responsible 032= grabbed friend to prevent arrest 033= victim was teacherlprinciple 034= death threat 035= escape Mer court - en route to custody 036= did not obey niles at group home 037= fled store after credit card owner was called 038= abandoned stolen car 039= possession of graphic equalizer 040= suspect of breaking in MV 041 = smashed glass door and entered premises 042= hotwired MV and =nt joyriding û43= hit another MV 044= throwing rocks at cars 045= no damage to MV 046= darnaging a fence 047= stole lumber from lumber yard 048= mutuai assault 049= victim was classrnate 050= attempted to return stolen merchandise without a receipt 051= bike stolen from school yard 052= damage 053= told victim to suck his cock 054= bit breast of victim while holding pillow over face 055= in custody 056= assaulted a staff member 057= on a field trip 058= zone alert issued 059= broke into house 060= tumed over to parents for punishment 061= armed with chair legs and broom handles 062= stole money from pockets in changeroom û63= breach of probation - consumed alcohol 064= accused called 91 1 threatening suicide 065= became violent Mile being transferred 066= accused was canying BB gun - no shots fired, not aimed at anyone 067= warning 068= weapon seized 069= removed gun from machine in store 070= broke into MV 071 = stole goods out of MV 072= stole parents MV and went joyriding 073= had stolen goods from other stores in possession 074= driving stolen MV - pulled over by police 075= shot pellet gun through window 076= accused demanded shoes from victim - when victim refused, accused put hand around victirns throat and put pen to throat 077= stole dirt bike and placed in back of stolen pick-up 078= robbed variety store with handgun 079= shot fired at pop fridge to prove gun was real 080= no injury to victim 081 = lit abandoned house on fire 082= completely destroyed house 083= verbally, then physically abused victim following Sound of Music Festival OH= shoplift - value >20$400$ 085= acuised was only one charged, two others present Offi= climbed ont0 roof of mall, when spotted jumped down and landed on spotlight 087= 2000$ damage to MV 088= residing with victim 089= took 1000$ worth of victims property when he left 090= threw rocks and acorns at victim 091= threatened victim 092= traveling between 20-50 km over, lost wntrol of MV and hit a pole 093= tried to steal money from other kids 094= put one kids head between his knees and jumped up and dom 095= admitted to stealing money out of MV 096= became angry when friend got LLA ticket 097= playhg with matches, started fire accidentall y 098= no damage 099= demanded cigarettes and money in till 100= fled on foot 101= stole bike 102= mother called police to report son was dealing drugs 103= gun seized 104= accused approached a peer who he had previously asked to join his skinhead gang, denied again, accused held him down and shaved his head 105= doused licorice w.th hits of acid and gave it out 106= insulted victim, then proceeded to punch and kick victim 107= stole MV 108= broke into locker and stole discman and two disks 109= accused was picking on victim, then proceeded to kick him in the side while he was sitting 11 O= stole a pair of boots for someone else- accused claimed that if he didn't, the guy was going to beat him up 11 1= upon amval at court for bail hearing, accused fled on foot 112= verbally assaulted mother, then struck her in the back of the head as she walked out of the room 113= swallowed drugs prior to being searched by staff - possibly delivered by visitor 114= verbal argument escalated, accused raised fist saying '1 wish I could kill you', then grabbed a butcher knife 115= emotionally unstable 116= accused is ward of CAS 117= began shaking phone ai counselor 118= threw radio at mother, confined mother and fnend in apartment for 45 minutes 119= damage to kitchen 120= spraypainted graffiti on wall 121= accused was intoxicated 122= reversed MV out of driveway and hit a parked firetruck 123= damaging floodlights 124= throwing buming pieces of paper into large refuse bin 125= possession of stolen bike 126= living in foster home 127= phone taken away from accused after disobeying house rules 128= grabbed victim by back of shirt, yanking her backward and began hitting her 129= victim had been bullied by accused in the past, school will not take action 130= climbed onto roof of church, tore off aluminum siding and threw it to the ground 131= patients at OTMH 132= stole purse, tried to withdraw money from instant teller 133= chronic discipline problem- when denied access to phone started cursing and threatening to hit stepfather- escalated and pushed mother 134= lost temper during phone conversation- hit door 135= history of violence 136= following arson and theft, accused united two power boats at yacht club 137= pulled out rose bushes and smashed plants and trellises 138= possession of stolen baseball glove 139= arrested on other matters 140= breach of probation- failure to report to probation officer A41= MV chase 142= possession of stolen stereo 143= accused threatened to beat up victim if he did not give him lunch money 144= accused victim of beating up his girlfriend 145= three friends held down victim while accused punched hirn several times 146= ring (value 9000t) 147= approached by three youths Mile riding his bike 148= asked victim to trade bikes for a while- accused rode off on victims bike 149= possession of stolen items from store 150= father found handgun under sons bed 151 = father reported it to police 152= taunted and beat up new student 153= accused victim of calling him names- escalated- struck victirn 154= argument escalated to physical assault 155= charged by Hamilton Wentwurth Police with theft over 156= broke into garage 157= victim chased youths and caught one of them 158= nothing taken 159= Subway card fraud 160= accused were using stolen bus passes 161= pricetag switching 162= breached rewgnizance- wntaded victim 163= threatened to put a knife through victims throat 164= former friends 165= broke into former friends residence while on vacation and took TV, VCR, stereo equipment and rare collection of 1$ Canadian bills 166= argument over boyfriend, escalated and became physical 167= accused tumed themselves into police and were subsequently charged 168= ripped screen on window, unlocked the window and crawied through 169= once inside accused ate ice cream and popsicles, stole nintendo game gold ring, chain and pendant 170= left restaurant without paying (value 40$) 171= assaulted another resident l72= chased and cornered victim, forcefully took victims wallet (value 40$) 173= stopped for spotcheck - car searched - toke bottle and hash found in car 174= accused were smoking dmgs 175= parents phoned 176= stole MV from grandparents - went joyriding 177= accused was no longer welcome at home 178= entered parents home with spare key, took 80$ 179= acuised shot wornen walking dog with BB gun 180= accused pushed victim into corner, punched him several times and pushed victirns head against wall 181= name calling escalated to physical 182= broke into school with master key 183= stole computer supplies and money 184= threatened to damage car of victims 185= accused followed victim to car following a party, smashed rear window and struck victim in face with baseball bat 186= broke into school took property (value 50$) 187= approached victirn and punched her two times 188= removed Bell calling card from mat pocket of victirn 189= broke into boarded up mobile trailer and set it on fire 190= searched - drugs found 191= victim assaulted by accused at 2 different times on same night 192= throMng eggs and glass at cars 193= trespassing on roof of high school 194= throwing objects at school bus 195= suspended from school 196= throwïngrocks at windows of houses under construction 197= accused was perfonning oral sex on victim in public 198= acwsed is developmentally challenged 199= mother found drugs in sons bedroorn - called police - did not want to lay charges, just scare him 200= banned from maIl 201= argument - kicked hole in door 202= argument with younger brother - escalated, stnick brother and parent 203= searched MV and seized drugs and drug paraphemalia Revised Details of Charge:

001= verbal threat or verbal argument escalated to physical assault 002= left store or restaurant without paying 003= damage 004= no damage 005= injury to victim Offi= no injury to victirn 007= victim was a friend or relative 008= victim was unknown to accused 009= no victim 01 O= incident occurred at accused residence or friends residence 01 1 = incident occurred at a store or restaurant 01 2= incident occuned at school 01 3= incident occurred in custody O 1 4= CO-accusedwas friendlrelative 015= incident occurred in a car 016= no fomal charges laid, y.0. responsible, altemative rneasures, diversion, caution, warning, taken home, suspended 01 7= failure to appear, court, disposition; failure to comply; breach of probation, recogniza nce 01 8= searched for dmgs 019= escape custody, zone alert issued 020= broke into house, store, restaurant, school - stole goods 021 = obstructing, assaulting police officer 022= victim was teacher, principle, staff member 023= threat, death threat, history of violence 024= throwing abjects at persans, MV, house 025= stole, hotwired, possession of or abandonment of MVlboat; joyriding, MV collision, car chase, broke into MV - stole goods 026= possession of stolen goods 027= vandalism, graffiti, damaging property, trespassing 028= mutual assault 029= theft of bicycle 030= sexual assault 031 = suicide atternpt 032= possession of fiream, shots fired, seized 033= robbery, armed robbery 034= arson 035= arrested on other matters, accused tumed themselves into police, not al1 accused wre charged 036= dwgged victim 037= mentally unstable, developmentally challenged 038= accused was intoxicated, on dwgs 039= in custody, foster home, hospital 040= stole purse, money, credit card 041= fraud

Revised Revised Details of Charge:

401= MV related crime 402= propertylpersonlresidential theft 403= shopliftlfraud - retail 404= robbery 405= dniglalcohol factor 406= wapon/firean factor 407= threat/assaült 408= sexual assault 409= arson 41 O= victim known to accused 41 1= victim unknown to victim 41 2= vanda1ism/graffitiltrespassing/damag ing property 41 3=failure to appear (courUprints), failure to wmply, breach probationlrecognizance 41 4= escape uistody 41 5= obstruct/assault police officer 41 6= no fomal charges 1y.o. responsible /alternative rneasures ltaken home lsuspended 41 7= suicide attempt

(25) col. 58 Pretrial Release 1= released unconditionally 2= released with summons 3= released by Staff Sgt. (form 10) 4= released by Arresting Officer (fom 9) 5= no charge 6= bail 7= on own recognizance with conditions (fom 11)

(26) col. 59 Charge 1 Cleared? 1= yes 2= no

(27) col. 60 How charge 1 cleared? 1= disposition 2= y.0. responsible 3= mentally unstable col. 61 Charge 2 Cleared? 1= yes 2= no

How charge 2 cleared? 1= disposition 2= y.0. responsible col. 63 Charge 3 Cleared? 1= yes 2= no

How charge 3 cleared? 1= disposition 2= y.o. responsible col. 65 Charge 4 Cleared? 1= yes 2= no col. 66 How charge 4 cleared? 1= disposition 2= y.0. responsible col. 67 Charge 5 Cleared? 1= yes 2= no coi. 68 How charge 5 cleared? 1= disposition 2= y.0. responsible

COI. 69-71 Court date (# of days following charge date; 001 -?) col. 72 How charge cleared? 1= not gone to court yet CARO 2 Colurnns 1-3 Identification Number

(38) col. 4-9 Disposition 1: (Note: There is space to indicate three dispositions, fiIl not applicable with 88) 01= fine 02= probation 03= wmrnunity service 04= open custody OS= secure custody 06= restitution 07= compensation 08= order for treatment 09= withdraWalternative measures 1O= stayed 11 = suspended sentence 12= jail 13= concurrent with other 14= charge reduced 15= peace bond 16= retumed brief to officer to have charges relaid 17= absolute discharge f8= 50$ charitable 19= plus time served 20= license suspension 21= pretrial custody 22= not gone to court yet 23= 10 year weapon prohibition 24= consecutive 25= disrnissed

(39) col. 10-1 5 Disposition 2

(40) col. 16-21 Disposition 3

(41) col. 23-25 Length of Disposition 1 in days (001-365) (Note: there is room to indicate three disposition type lengths, fiil missing data with 888)

(42) col. 26-28 Length of Disposition 2 in days (43) col. 29-31 Length of Disposition 3 in days

(44) col. 32 Was there a w-accused? 1= yes 2= no (Note: if no w-accused then columns 34-? filled with 8888)

(45) wl.33 Total # of CO-accused(0-7)

(46) COI.34-35 Date of birth of CO-accused? (month)

(47) COI.36-37 Date of birth of co-accused? (year)

(48) col. 38-40 Age of Co-accused in months? (001-?)

(49) col. 41 Gender of w-accused? 1= male 2= female

Race of CO-accused? 01= white 02= black

(51) col. 4445 Number of previous charges for CO-acaised? 00= none to ??

(52) col. 46 Was more than one charge laid for CO-accused? 1= yes

(53) col. 47 Were the charges the same or different from the accused? 1= same charges of accused 2= different charges

(54) col. 48 In Matway were charges for co-accused different? 1= charges were same as accused 2= charges more serious for co-accused 3= charges less serious for m-accused

(55) col. 49 Were there more charges laid on co-accused? 1= same number of charges as accused 2= more charges laid on co-acwsed 3= less charges laid on CO-acarsed (56) col. 50 Which of the following categories best describes charges laid on w-accused? O= other 1= property offences 2= violent offenœs 3= violent- but assault level 4= yoa related 5= dnig offences 6= Mence against administration of law and justice 7= offence against personlreputation

PREVIOUS OFFENCE HISTORY

Previous ûffence Type (most recent offence prior)

Which of the following categories best describes this offence? O= other 1= property offences 2= violent offences 3= violent- but assauit level 1 4= yoa related 5= drug offences 6= offence against administration of law and justice 7= offence against personfreputation

Number of Months Passed Between this offence and current offence

Was more than one charge laid? 1= yes 2= no

Details of Charge(s): (Note: there is space to fiIl in 4 details for charge; if only one detail fiIl remaining spaces with 888) (use codes for question 24) (62) col. 71 Pretrial Release: 1= released unconditionally 2= released with summons 3= released by Staff Sgt. 4= released by Arresting Officer 5= no charge 6= bail 7= on own recognizance

CARD 3 Columns 1-3 Identification Number

Disposition 1: (Note: There is space to indicate three dispositions, fiIl not applicable with 88) (use codes for question 38)

Disposition 2

Disposition 3

Length of Disposition 1 in days 001 -365 (Note: there is room to indicate three disposition type lengths, fiIl missing data 888)

(67) CUI. 25-27 Length of Disposition 2 in days

(68) COI. 28-30 Length of Disposition 3 in days

(69) col. 31 Was there a CO-accused? 1= yes 2= no

(70) col. 32 Total # of CO-accused(0-7) 124

PREVIOUS OFFENCE HISTORY 2

Previous Offence Type (most recent offence prior)

Which of the following categories best describes this offence? O= other 1= property offences 2= violent offences 3= violent- but assault level 1 4= yoa related 5= drug offences 6= offence against administration of law and justice 7= offence against personlreputation

Number of Months Passed Betwleen this offence and cuvent offence

Was more than one charge laid? 1= yes 2= no

Details of Charge(s): (Note: there is space to fiIl in 4 details for charge; if only one detail fiIl remaining spaces with 888) (use codes for question 24)

(76) col. 52 Pretrial Release: 1= released unconditionally 2= released with summons 3= released by Staff Sgt. 4= released by Arresting Officer 5= no charge 6= bail 7=on own recognizance

(77) COI.53-58 Disposition 1: (Note: There is space to indicate three dispositions, fil1 not applicable with 88) (use codes from question 38)

(78) cal. 594% Disposition 2 (79) col. 65-70 Disposition 3

CARO 4 Colurnns t -3 Identification Number

(80) mi. 4-6 Length of Disposition 1 in days (001-365) (Note: there is room to indicate three disposition type lengths, fiIl missing data with 888)

(81) col. 7-9 Length of Disposition 2 in days

(82) col. 10-1 2 Length of Disposition 3 in days

(83) col. 13 Was there a CO-accused? 1= yes 2= no

(84) col. 14 Total # of CO-accused(0-7)

PREVIOUS OFFENCE HISTORY 3

(85) col. 15-17 Previous Offence Type (most recent offence prior)

(86) col.18 Which of the following categories best describes this offence? O= other 1= property offences 2= violent offences 3= violent- but assault level 1 4= yoa related 5= drug offences 6= offence against administration of law and justice 7= offence against personlreputation

(87) col. 19-20 Number of Months Passed Between this offence and current offence (88) ~01.21 Was more than one charge laid? 1= yes 2= no

(89) co1.22-33 Details of Charge(s): (Note: there is space to fiIl in 4 details for charge; if only one detail fiIl remaining spaces with 888) (use codes for question 24)

(90) col. 34 Pretrial Release: 1= released unconditionally 2= released with summons 3= released by Staff Sgt. 4= released by Arresting Officer 5= no charge 6= bail 7= on own recognizance

(91 ) col. 35-40 Disposition 1: (Note: There is space to indicate three dispositions, fiIl not applicable with 88) (use codes for question 38)

(92) col. 41 -46 Disposition 2

(93) col. 47-52 Disposition 3

(94) col. 53-55 Length of Disposition 1 in days (001-365) (Note: there is room to indicate three disposition type lengths, fiil missing data with 888)

(95) col. 56-58 Length of Disposition 2 in days

(96) col. 59-61 Length of Disposition 3 in days

(97) col. 62 Was there a CO-acwsed? 1= yes 2= no

(98) col. 63 Total # of CO-accused(0-7)

CODEBOOK: Phase Il: Followup Period (March IggS-Febniary 1997) Data will be gathered for each re-offence committed in the followup period

COI1-3 Identification number 001 -

col 4-5 Date of offence (day)

COI6-7 Date of offence (month)

COI8-9 Date of offence (year)

col 10 Was more than one charge laid? O= no charge laid 1= yes 2= no

COI11-13 Charge 1 - type of offence (UCR codes)

col 14 Charge 1 - category of offence O= other 1= property offences 2= violent offences 3= violent - but assault level 1 4= yoa related offences 5= drug offences 6= offences against the administration of law and justice

COI15-17 Charge 2 - type of offence (UCR codes)

coi 18 Charge 2 - category of offence O= other 1= property offences 2= violent offences 3= violent - but assault level 1 4= yoa related offences 5= dnig offences 6= offences against the administration of law and justice

Charge 3 - type of offence (UCR codes)

Charge 3 - category of offence O= other 1= property offenœs 2= violent offences 3= violent - but assault level 1 4= yoa related offences 5= drug offences 6= offences against the administration of law and justice

12) col 23-25 Charge 4 - type of offence (UCR codes)

13) col 26 Charge 4 - category of offence O= other 1= property offences 2= violent offences 3= violent - but assault Ievel 1 4= yoa related offenœs 5= drug offences 6= offences against the administration of law and justice

14) col 27-29 Charge 5 - type of offence (UCR codes)

15) col30 Charge 5 - category of offence O= other 1= property offences 2= violent offences 3= violent - but assault level 1 4= yoa related offences 5= drug offences 6= offences against the administration of law and Iustice

16) col32 Pretrial release 1= release unconditionally 2= released with a summons 3= released by Staff Sgt. (fom 10) 4= released by arresting officer (fon 9) 5= no charge 6= bail 7= released on own recognizance with conditions (fom 11 ) 17) col 33-38 Disposition 1- there is space to record three dispositions, fiIl not applicable with 88 01 = fine 02= probation 03= wmmunity service 04= open custody 05= secure custody 06= restitution 07= compensation 08= order for treatment 09= withdrawnlaltemative measures 1O= stayed 1 1= suspended sentence 12= jail 13= concurrent 14= charge reduced 15= peace bond 16= retumed brief to officer to have charges relaid 17= absolute discharge 18= 50$ charitable 19= plus time served 20= Iicense suspension 21= pretrial custody 22= not gone to court yet 23= 10 year weapon prohibition

18) col 39-44 Disposition 2

19) col 45-50 Disposition 3

20) col 51-53 Length of disposition 1 (in days)

21) col 54-56 Length of disposition 2 (in days)

22) col 57-59 Length of disposition 3 (in days)

23) col 60-62 Time served in custody (in days)

24) col 6345 Time between offences (in days)

25) col 66-67 Date of first offence (day)

26) col 68-69 Date of first offence (month)

27) col 70-71 Date of first offence (year) APPENDIX III 132

STATSEC OFFENCE OESCR l PT ION OFFCLASS UCFICO

46. (la-C) HlCH TREASON - DEF 46. (2a-a) TREASON - DEF 47. (1 ) HIGH TREASON - PUH INDLIF 47A2a) TREASON - Se46(2A,C,0) - FUN INDLIF 47. (2b) TREASON - SO46(2B,E) STATE OF WAR - PUN INDLIF 47.(2c) TREASON - S.46(2B8E) - PUN IN014 49- (ab) IN1 TO ALARWHARU OUEEN/BAEU( PUBLIC PUCE IN014 SO.(lab) ASSIS1 ALIEN EHEW/OUIT TO PREV TREASOH 50. (2) PUNISHMENT PROV FOR S.SO(IA,B) INDI4 51 * INTtUlDATE PARLIUAENT/LEGISLATURES !ND14 S2.(1ab) SABOTAGE: CANADAlOTHER COUNTRY IN010 53. (ab) INCITE UUTIW: SEDUCE/INCltE IN014 54 ASSIS1 OESERTER SC 56, Ca-c) OFFENCES RE RQIP: DESERT/HAR00UR/AIO SC 57. (1ab) FORGING A PASSPORT/OEAL/CAUSE TO DEAL 1 ND1 4 57- (2al FALSE SMTb PROCtlRE PASSPORT - INû I ND2 57. (2b) FALSE STUT TO PROCURE PASSPORT - SC SC 57. (3) POSSESSION OF FORGE0 PASSPORT I ND5 58.{lab) FRAUOULENT USE OF CERt OF CITIZENSHIP I ND2 S9.(1-4ab) SEDITION - DEF 61. (a-c) SEDITION - PUN l ND1 4 62.(ta-c) SEO l T 1 ON - M l L lTARY FORCES l NOS 63 UNLAWFUL ASSEmLY - DEF 64 RIOT - DEF l ND2 65 . RIOTER - PUN IN02 86. UNLAWFUt ASSEmLY - PUN SC 68. (a-c) PlOTS PROCLAMATION INOLIF 69 HECLECT BY PEACE OFFICER TO SUPPRESS RlOT lm2 7OJlab) UNLAWFUL DR ILL 1 ffi - DEF 70.(3) UNLAWFUL DR ILL ING - GOV IN aUNC IL OROER 1 NûS 71 .(a-cl DUELt l ffi lm2 72*(1)(2) FORCl8l.E EHTRY - DEF 73Ja) FORCIBLE ENTRY - FUN - SC SC 73.(b) FORC IBLE EMTRY - PUN - IN0 IND2 .74.(1) P IRACY - PW INOUF 75. (a-d) PlRATlCAL ACT lm14 76. (a-dl HI JAUCIffi INDLIF 77,(ad) ENOANCER A l RCRAFT IHDLIF 78. (lab) OFFENSIVE WEAPON OR EXPLOS IVE ON A IRCRAFT IND14 78.(lab) OFFENS IVE WEAPON OR EXPLOS IVE ON A l RCRAFT I ml4 80, (a) EXPtOS I VES : BREACH OF DUrY CAUS 1 NG DEATH 1 NOL I F 86. (b) EXPLOSIVES: BREACH OF DUTY - INJURE IN014 81 .(lab) EXPLOS t VES : TO CAUSE BO0 l LY HARM/OEAIW INOL IF 81 Jlcd) EXPLOSIVES: TO DESTROY PROP/POSS TO ENOANG INDI4 81. (2a) EXPLOSIVES: CAUSE BODILY HAM IHDLIF 81 .(2b) EXPLOSIVES: INJURE U/IWENT/OAIUGE PROP lm14 82. EXPLOSIVES: 1CLEGAL POSS/CûNTROt, ETC l NOS 83.Ua-cl PR l ZE F KHT: ENGAGE I WENCOURAGE/PRûMûTE SC 8S.(lab) USE F I REARM: CM1 TT l NG OF FENCE/AFt€R lm14 88.(18) POltBlNG A FIREARM - IN0 I NO5 se.(lb) POINTING A FIREARM - SC SC 86.(2811 CARELESS USE/STORACE/HANDLING OF FA - 1ST lNO2 CARELESS US€/STORAGE/HANDLIffi OF FA - 2NO INOS 058 CARELESS USE/STORAGE/HANDLINC OF FA - SC SC 058 POSS OF OANCEROUS WEAPON lNOlO 058 POSSESS F IREARM AT PUBL IC MEET l NC SC 058 CARRY CONCEME0 WEAPOU - IN0 l NOS 058 CARRY CONCEALE0 WEAPON - SC SC 058 POSSESSION OF PROH18 11EQ WEAPON - IND l NOS 056 - POSSESSION OF PROHIBITE0 WEAPON - SC SC'. 056 PROHI8 ITED UEAPON IN WOTOR VEHICLE - IND INOS 056 PROHlBlTEO IEAPON IN UOTOR VEHICLE - SC SC 056 POSS OF UYRECIS.RESTAICTED WEAPON - IND iNOS OS7 POSS OF UNREGIS RESTRICTEO WEAPON - SC SC 057 POSS Of REST WEAP ELSEWHERE THAN REG - IND IN05 OS7 POSS OF REST WEAP ELSLWHERE THAN REG - SC SC OS7 RESTR ICTED WEAPON IN UOTOR VEH I~E- 1 NO INOS os7 RESTR ICTED WEAPON IN UOTOR VEH 1.a~- SC SC 057 TRANSFER F IREARU TO PERSON UNOER 16 - IN0 IND2 OS8 TRANSFER FIREARY TO PERSON UNDER 16 - SC SC" OS8 WRONGFUL DELIVERY OF FIREARU - IN0 1 ND5 058 WRONGFVC DEL IVERY OF F IREMM - SC SC OS8 INPORT PROH 18 ITED WEAPON - IN0 INOS 056 1UPORT PFlOHlBlTED WEAPON - SC SC 5;OS6 ' DELIVERY OF RESTRICTE0 WEAPON - IN0 l NOS 057 DEL lVERY OF RESTRICTED WEAPON - SC SC OS7 INPORT RESTRICTE0 WEAPON - IN0 1 NOS OS7 IMPORT RESTRICTED WEAPON - SC SC 057 SELL/DEL IVEFI FA W/OUT ACOUI S CERt lF - IN0 IN02 058 SECL/D€L IVER FA W/WT ACOU l S CERT l F - SC SC OS8 IMPORT/ACOU IRE FA W/OUT ACûU lS CERT - IN0 lNO2 0- iL(PORT/ACQUlREFAW/OUTACOUISCERT-SC SC 058 &WIC UNOER S.83/85 MAN0 PROH POSS FA-1ST PROH5 058 CûNVlC UNbER S.83/85 MANO PROH POSS FA-2NdPROHlO 058 5.662.1/738 CONVIC, DlSC ORO PROH POSS FA PROHS 058 HAVE WEAPON PROH BY 8.88/100 - IN0 1 NDS 05F HAVE UEAPON PROH BY SmQ8/100 - SC SC O5 DISPOSAL, PROHIB OROER OF FA, üPN, M PROH5 O' EXPLOSIVE PROH 8Y 5.101(68)/103(68) - IN0 IN05 t ' FIREARM.PROH BY S.101~68)/103(68) - IN0 lNOS EXPLOSIVE PROH 8Y S.101(68)/103(68) - SC SC CIREMM PRW BY S,101(68)/103(68) - SC - SC FlCd)lNG PROH181TED WEAPON - DEF FINDlWG RESTRICTE0 WEAPON - DfF FlMJING FIREARM - OEF LOS€ EST WONU/OUT REPORflNG - DEF MTER/DEFACE/REW)VE SERIN. W. ON FA - DEF PUN FOR SmlO2/lO4: flNO/LOSE/ALTER SER NO. INOS PUN FOR S,102/104: FIND/LOSEIALTER SER NO. SC RECORDS OF TRANS IN FA - DEF NEG TO KEEP RECORDS OF TRANS IN FA - I ND lND5 NEG TO KEEP RECOROS OF TRANS IN SA - IN0 IN05 NEG 10 KEEP RECORDS OF TRANS IN FA - SC SC ' NEG TO KEEP RECOROS OF TRANS IN FA - SC SC 058 FALSE SMS t0 PROCURE FA CERTIF - IND I ND2 - OS8 FAlSE STNTS TO PROCURE FA CERTIF - SC SC 058 TWER W/FA ACQUIS CERT, ETC - 1NO l ND2 058 TAMPER WFA ACQUIS CERT, ETC - SC SC 058 i06.S(3a) 11343a) FAIL TOCOIIPLYWIP€RM~TCONO~T~ONS- IND INOZ 106.5(3b) 113.(3b) FAlLTOCOUPLYW/PERUITCONDlTlONS-SC SC 106.5(4ab) 113A4ab) FAlL TO DEL FA AQUlS CERT REVOKEWPRON SC 108,(1ab) 119.(lab) ACCEPT/OFFER BRISE - JUDlC OFFICER/UP/MLA lN0l4 109.(ab) 120Jab) ACCEPT/OFFER 8fUBE - JUST/POL COM/PEAC OFF IN014 llO(12 121.(2) FRAUDS UPON GOVERWEHT - OEF 110. (3) 121,(3) FRAUOS UPON GOVERWEN'T - PUN I ND5 111. 122. BREACH Of TRUST BY PUBL1C OFFICER l NOS 112.(la-f) 123.(la-f) CORRUPT UUNlClPN OFFICIN 1 ND5 lt2,(2a-c) 123.(2a-c) INFLUENCE MUNICIPAL OFFICIAL 1 ND5 113.(ab) 124Jab) SELLINGIPURCHASINCOFFICES f ND5 a 125.(a-c) DEAt/HEGOTIAT€/SOLICIT OFFICES/APPThtENTS IN05 115.(1) 126.(1) OlSOBEYINGASTATlKE IND2 716.(1) 127. DlSOBEYlNG ORDER OF COURT I ND2 117.Cab) l28.(ab) UISCONDUCT OF OFFICER IN EXECUTINC PROCESS IN02 . 139. (a4 OBSTRUCT PEACE .OFF ICER - OEF 129. cd-) OFF RE PUCE OFFICER: S.118/129-.- PUN INO2 129. (8) OFF RE PEACE OFFICER: S.118/129 - PUN SC 130. (ab) PERSONATING A PEACE OFFICER SC 131.(1) PERJUR,Y I'DEF* 132. PERJURY - GENERAL - PUN IN014 t 32 PERJURY - PUN IHOL IF 134 (-1 1 .FUSE STATEMEHT IN AFFIDAVIT, ETC SC 136.(1) G l V l NG CONTRAO l CTORY EV lDENCE IN014 137. FABRICATlffi EVIDENCE IND1 4 138. (a-c) OÇFENCES RELAtlNG Tb AFFIDAVITS 1ND2 139. (lab) O8STRUCT JUSTICE - OEF .- 139.(tc) O0STAUCT JUSTICE - PUN 1 NO2 139. itd) OBSTRUCT SUSTICE - PUN SC 139. (2.3) OBSTRUCT JUSTlCE - OTHER/JUD PROCEEDING IN010 14O,(lad) PUBLIC UISCHIEF - DEF 140. (Zr) PUBLIC MISCHIEF TO UISLEAD ?O - PUN -IN0 INDS , 140. (2b) PUBLIC YfSCHlEF tO UlSLEAO PO - PUN - SC SC 141.(1) COc(POUN0ING INûlCTABLE OFFENCE IND2 142. CORRUPTLY TM1 ffi REWAROS INOS 143. (a41 ADVERT ISE REWARD AND IWNITY SC 144. (ab) PRISON BREAW IN010 - 14S.(lr) ESWE CUStODY I NO2 14S.(lr) ESCAPE WSTOOY PC 14S.(lb) ESCAPE CUSTOOY BEFORE TERM EXPIRES 1 NO2 14S.(lb) ESCAPE CUSTOOY BEFORE TERM EXP l RES SC 145.(2-5) FA 1 L TV ATTENb/cruPLY/APPEAR, ETC .- I ND l PD2 145. (2-5) CA I L TO ATTENO/CCWLY/APP EU, ETC - SC SC t46.(a-c) PERMIT OR ASSIST ESCAPE INO2 147. (a-c) RESCUE OR PERMIT ESCAPE I NOS 148. (ab) ASS I ST PR ISWER OF WAR TU ESCAPE l NOS 151. SEXUAL INTERFERENCE IN010 151 . SEXUAL-INTERFERENCE SC 152 INV ltAT CON TO SEXUAL TOUCH lNG IN010 152 INVITATION TO SEXUAL TOUCHING SC 153. (1 ) SEXUAL EXPLOITATION t NOS 153. (1 ) SEXUM EXPLOl TAT ION SC SEX WFEMALE UNOER 14: NOT 11 IFE (REPEALED) INOL I F SEX WFEUALE UNOER 14: (REPEALED) INDLIF SEX~MFELULE 14 TO 18: NOT wwE (REPLALEDI INOS SEX WFEMME 14 TO 16: CHASTE CREPEALEDI IN05 146.(2c) SEX W/FELIALE 14 TO 16 (REPEALED) l NOS 150.(1) INCEST- OEF 150. (2) INCEST - ?UN IN014 151. SEDUCE FEUALE 16 TO 18 (REPEALED) l NO2 152. SEOUCE UNDER PROMISE TO WRY (REPEALED) IN02 153.(ta) SEX WlTH STEPOAUÇHTER (REPEALED) I ND2 153.(lb) SEX WlTW FEMALE EMPLOYEE (REPEALED) I ND2 154. SEOUCE FEUALE ON VESSEL (REPEMED) IND2 154.(1-3) ANAL I NTERCOUR.SE !ND10 154.(1-3) ANAL I NTERCûURSE SC 155. BUGCERY OR BESTlALlTY (REPEALED) lNOl4 155. (1-3) BESTIALIN - CWMlT/COMPEL/INClTE PERS <14 1N010 155.(1-3) BESTIALIN - CûWIT/COMQEL/IKIT€ PERS 44 SC 157, GROSS INDECENCY (REPEALED) 1 NOS ISg. (1-2) CORRUPT UORALS - OEF 161. TlED SALE - DEF 162. (lab) RESTRICT PUBL JUD PROC REPORTS - DEF 163. (1,2) IWRAL THEATRE PERFORMANCE - DEF 164. MAIL OBSCENE UTTER - DEF 165. (a j COR UORALS: S.159.161-164/163,165-168-PUN IN02 leS. (b) COR WRALS: S.159,161-164/163,16S-I68-PUN SC 166. PARENT/GUARDIAH PROCUR SEX ACTlVlTY (44) INOS 186. PARENT/GUARO PROCUR SEX ACTlVlTY (14-18) IND2 166. (a) PARENT PROCUR IMG DEF ILEMÉNT (REPEALED) 168. (b) PAREM' PERMITTING DEF1LEMENT (REPEALED) 106. (e) FEMALE * t4 YEARS CREPEALED) I NO1 4 168. (d) FEMME -+ 14 YEARS (REPEACEO) INO5 167. HOUSEHOLDER PERMIT SEX ACTlVlTY (44) lNOS 167. HOUSEHOLDER PERMIT SEX ACTlVlTY (14-18) INOZ 167. (a) HOUSEHOLD PERMIT DEFILE: OWNER (REPEALED) IN05 167. (b) HoUSEHOLD-PERU~TDEFICE: CûNTROL(REPEALE0) IN05 168.C1) CORRUPTING CHILOREN IN THE HûüE l NO2 768. (rb) INOECENT ACTS (REPEMED) SC 160. (lab) INOECENT ACTS SC 169. (2) EXPOSURE TO PERSON UNOER 14 SC 170. (lrb) NU0 lTY - PUBL lC PROPERTY/PR IVATE PROPERTY SC 171. (la-d) CAUSING A DISTURBANCE: EXPOSE/LOITER, ETC SC. 172. (lab) OBSTRUCT OFF Ic IAT 1 NO CLERGY: ASSAULT/ARREST INDZ 172. (2.3) WILFULLY DISTURB RELlG WORSHIP/MEETING SC 173. TRESPASS AT NlCHT SC 174. (ab) OFFENSIVE VOLATILE SUBSTANCE SC 175.(lde) VAGRANCï - DEF 175.(2) VAGRANCY - PUN SC 176. Clr) COWON NUI'SANCE - ENDANGER LIFE - PUN I HOP 17&(1b) WNWISANCE - CAUSE INJURY- PUN IND2 178. (2) COWON NUISANCE - DEF 177. SPREAD FALSE NEWS CAUSINC INJURY INO2 178.(ab) INOECENTLY IWERFERE WlTH DEAD BODY lNOS 178.1 INVASION OF PRIVACY - DEF 178.11(1) 1 NTERCEPT lWC A PR IVATE CûWUN ICAT ION I NO5 l78.18(1) POSSESSISELL/Büï INTERCEPTING DEVICES IND2 1?8.2(1) 193.(7) DISCLOSURE Of INFORLUTION lNO2 18S0(1) 201.(1) KEEPlNGDISORDERCYm>USE-BETTlffi I ND2 185.(t) 201.(1) KEEPING OISORDERLY HOUSE - GAMING I NO2 185. (2ab) 201. (2ab) 0 IS HOUSE - BET - FOUNO IN/OWN€R, ETC SC 185.CPab) 2O1.(2ab) DIS HOUSE L W - FOUNO IN/OWNER, ETC SC i86.(1a-J) 202.(la-J) BETTlffi, POOL-SELLING, 600WAKING - DEF 186.(2a) 202.(2a) BET/PûûL-SELL, ETC - S.186/202 - PUH IST IN02 186. (2b) 202. (2b) BET/PWC-SELC, ETC - S. l86/PO2 - PUN 2N0 IN02 186. (2~) 202. (2~) BET/POOL-SELL, ETC - S. l86/2OZ - PUN OTH (ND2 187.(a-c) 203.(a-c) PLACE/ENGACE/HOLD BET ON BEHALF OF OTHER 187.(d) 203.(d) PLACE BET ON BEHALF OF OTHER - PUN 1st I ND2 187.Ce) 203.Ca) PLACE BET ON BEKALF OF OTHER - PUN 2NO I ND2 187*(f) 203. (1) PLACE BET OH BEHALF OF OTHER - PUN OTH I NO2 108.(8a) 204.(10a) NOTCWPLY W/PROVSREPARlJAUTSYS- 1ND IN02 188.(8&) 204.(10b) NOT WPLY W/PROVS RE PARI-UUT SYS - SC SC 189.(la-J) 206.(lr-J) LOTTERY SCHEME: PUOL/SELL/SEND/CONOUCTIETC IN02 189.(4) 206.(4) 8UY TICKET IN SCHEME/LOTTERY, ETC SC 190. (3a I 207. (3a 1') LOTTERY SCHEUE : UNAUTHOR l ZED CONDUCT I ND2 iQO.(3alf) 207.(3all) LOTTERY SCHEUE: UHAUTHORIZED CONDUCT SC 190.(3b) 207.(36) PARTICIPATION IN LOTTEAY SCHEME SC 182. 200, CHEAT l NG I ND2 193.(1) 210.(1) eAWDYHoUSE-KEEPER I NO2 193.(2a-c) 210.(2a-cl BAWOY HOUSE - IWTE/FOUND IWOWNER, ETC SC 104. 21 1 . TRANSPORT TO BAWDY HOUSE SC 195.(la-j] 212.(la-J) PROCURE/SOLICIT ILLICIT SEX/EWTICE, ETC IN010 195.(2) 212.(2) CIVE OFF AVAlLS OF PROSTfTUTlON < 18 YRS IN014 1QS. (4) 21 2. (4) ATTEMPT/OBTAI N SEX FROU PERSON 4 18 YRS I ND5 195.1(la-~1213. (la-c) PROSTITUTION:STOP UV/IUPEDE TRAF/PERSON SC 197. (1 a-c) 215. (la-c) DUTY 'OF PERSONS TO PROVIDE~NECESSARl ES - OE PROVIDE NECESSARIES - OFFENCES - DEF PROVIOE NECESSARIES - PUN - tND 1 ND2 PROVIOE NECESSARIES -.PUN - SC SC ABANDON CH l LO I ND2 CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE - Dm- ACT/ûMISSfON CRIMINM NEGLIGENCE CAUSlNG DEATH INDLIF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE BOOlLY HAAU IN010 MUROER WITH INTENT - DEF YUROER IN rrY"ISSI0N OF OFFENCES - DEF FlRSt OEGREE MUROER - POLICE, ETC - DEF SECOF0 OEGREE WROER - DEF UURD REOüCED TO WSL-PASS I OWPROVOC -OEF lNFAN7lClDE - DEF WSLAUGHTER - DEF MURDER - ?UN INDL 1 F SECONû DEGREE WROER - PUN f NOL I F UANSLAUGHTEA - PUN INDLIF INFANTICIDE - QUN l ND5 KlLLlNG UN80RN CHILO IN ACT OF BIRTH INOLIF AT1EMPTEO UUROER INDLIF ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT Tb UUROER lNOLlF CûUNSEL/AIO/ABET PERSON T0 COMLOT SUICIDE 1 ND1 4 NEGLECT TO OBTAIN ASSlST IN CHILDBIRTH I NOS CONCEAL BODY OF CHlLO I NO2 PISCHARGE FIREARM WITH INTENT IN014 ADMI W MXIOUS TH ING: ENOANG L1 FE/BOD HARM lm14 AOMlN NûXlOUS THINC: AGGRIEVE/ANNOY lm2 OVERCOME FIES I ST TO WITOFFENCE INOLIF

TRAP T0 CAUSE HARWPERUIT TRAP Y, I NOS I NTERFERE 1I TH' TRANSPORT INDLlF FAlL 70 WATCH PERSON/TOII VTER DARK SC OPERATE UNSEAWORTHY VESSÉL, UNSAFE AlRWFt l NOS 236Jtc) 252.(1c) HIT AND RUM CATTCE 1 ND2 236.(Jc) 252Alc) HITAND RUNCATTLE SC 243.2(ab) 262.(ab) IMPEDE PERSON SAVlNG OWN LIFE/OTHER IN010 243.3(1,2) 263. (1,2) SAFEGUARO OPENING IN ICE/LAND EXCAVATION 243.3(3a) 263.0a) PUN - S*243.3(1,2)/263(1,2) - IF OEATH INOL l F 243.3(3b) 263.(3b) PUN - S.243.3(1,2)/263(1,2) - BOOlLY HARM IN010 243.3(3~) 263,(3~) PUN - S.243.3(1,2)/203(1,2) - SC SC 243.4(1a-~)264.(1a-c) UTTER THREATS - PERSON/PROP/ANlUU - DEF 243.4(2) 264.(2) UTTER THRUS - PERSON - PUN 1 NOS 243.4Ua) 264.(3a) UTTER THREATS - PROP/ANIMUS - PUN - IN0 l NO2 243.4(3b) 264.(3&) UTTER THREATS -PROP/ANlMALS -PUN -SC SC 244. (1a-c) 265. ( 1 a-cl ASSAULT '- APPLY FORCE/THREAT/ IMPEDf - DEF 245. (a) 268. (a) ASSAULT - ?UN - IN0 . l ND5 245.(b) 268.(b) ASSAULT - PUN - SC SC 245.1Clab) 267,(lab) ASSAULT W l TH WEAPO&CAUS I NC BO0 l LY HARU lND10 245.2(1) 268.(1) AGGRAVATEO ASSAULT - OEF - -' 24s. P(2) 268. (2) ACGRAVATED ASSAULT - PUN lm14 245.3 260. UNLNfULLY CAUS l NC BOOJ LY HARM l NO10 245.4 269.1 TORTURE 8Y OR AU1HOR I ZED 8Y OFF l C l AL IN014 248.(laI 270.(la) ASSAULT PEACE OFFICER - POClCE - OEF 246. (la) 270. (la) ASSAULT PUCE OFFICER - OTHER - DEF 246.(Ibc) 270.(lbc) ASS PERS - RESIST ARREST4PREMNT SEIZURE 248.(2a) ?7O.(2a) ASSAULT - S,246/270 - PUW - IN0 t NOS 246.(2a) 270.(2&) ASSAULT - S.248/270,- PM - IN0 l NOS 248.(2b) 270.(2b) ASSAULT - Sa246/270 - PUN - SC SC 286 .(ab) 270. (2b) ASSAULT - Sa246/270 - PUN - SC SC 246.1(1r) 271.(1a) SEXUAi ASSAULT IWO IN010 246.1(1b) 271.(Ib) SEXUAL ASSAULT - SC SC 246,2îa-d) 272.(a-d) SEX ASS W/WEAPON/T HREATKAUSE BOû HARU, ETC l NO1 4 248.3(1) 273.(1) AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT - DEF 246.3(2) 273.(2) AGGRAVATEO SEXUAL ASSAULT -'PuN INOLIF 246.6(5) 276.(5) PUBLICATION OF PROHlSITEO NO1ICE SC 247.(ta-cl 278.(1a-c) KI ONAP : CONF I NE/SE)I(D OUT/HOCD FOR RANSW lNOLlF 247. (2) 279. (2) . FORC I BLE CONF l NEMENT l NO1 O 247.1(jab) 279.3~fab)HOSTAGE TUC I NWUTTER T HREAT RE -HOSTAGE 247.1(2) 278.1(2) MSTAGE TAKING - PUN INOLIF 24U.(l) 280, (1 1 ABOUCT PERSON UNDER 18 I ND5 250. 281. ABOUCT PERSON UNOER 14 1 ND1 O 250.1(a) 282.(a) ABDUCT COUNTER CUSTODY OROER - INO I NO1 O 2SO.l (b) 282. (b) ABDUCT COUWER CUSTODY OROER - SC SC 250.2(la) 283. (la) ABOUCT NO CUSTOOY OROER - IN0 IN010 2SOO2(lb) 283.(lb) ABDUCT NO CUSTOOY ORDER - SC SC PSI .Cl) 287.(1) PROCLJRING YISCARRIAGE lNOt IF 251 ,(2) 287. (2) WûMAN PROCUR I HG OWN Y I SCARR !AG€ I ND2 252. 288 SUPPLY NûXlOUS THlNC FOR ABORTION I ND2 254.{tab) 290Clab) 0 l GAMY : CANADMOTHER COUNTRY - DEF 255.(1) 297(1) BIM- PUN L NOS 256.(1) 292*(1) PROCURING FEIGNE0 UARRIAGE l NOS 257.(lab) 293.(lab) POLYGAUY l NOS 258.(lab) 294.(lab) UNLAWFUL SOCEMNlZATlON OF WRlAGE I ND2 259. 285. MARAIAGE CONTRARY TO LAW I ND2 260.(1) 296.(1) BLASPHEMOUS LIBEL I ND2 262. 298. DEFAMATORY LIBEL - DEF 263. 299. DEFAMATORY L 1 BEL - PUEL l SH - DEF 264. 300. LIBEL KNOW T0 BE FALSE - PUN I ND5 m. 301. DEFAMATORY LIBEC - QUBLlSH IN02 "Z6.(1,2) 302.(1,2) EXTORTION 8Y LIBEL - DEF S6. (3) 302.(3) EXTORTION BY LleEL l NOS 281 .1( 1 ) 31 8. ( 1 ) ADVOCATE/PROUOTE GENOC l DE 1 NOS 281.2(la2a)319.(1a2a)* PUBLIC INCITEMENT OF HATREO - IND 1 NO2 281.2(1b2b)3lQ.(lb2b) PUBLIC INCITEMENT Of HATREO - SC SC THEFT W/INTENT: DEPRIVE/PLEDGE, ETC - DEC THEFT OF OYSTERS - DEF THEFT OF OYSTERS - DEF THEFT BY BAILEE OF THINGS SElZEb - OEF THEFT OF ELECTRIC/CAS/TELEC SERVICE - DEF THEFT OF ELECTRIC/GAS/tftEC SERVICE - DEF POSSESS OEVICE TO OBTAIN TELE- SERVICE IN02 POSSESS DEVICE TO OBTAIN TELECOirl SERVICE IN02 THEFt/SPEC PROP/INTEREST:OWNER/OTHER - DEF THEFT BY SPOUSE WltE LIVING APART - DEF THEFT BY SPOUSE: ASSIST/RECEIVE PROPERTY THEFT BY PERSOH REQ'D TO ACOOUHT - DEF THEFT BY PERSOH REQ'D TO ACCûUNT - DEF THEFT BY PERSON W/POWER OF ATTORNEY - DEF THEFT BY PERSON U/POWER OF ATTORNEY - DEF THEFT: UlSAPPROQRlATlON OF FUNDS - DEF THEFT: MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNOS - DEF THET,T, -> $1 000 ,---UV _ IN010 THÉFT .siooo IN010 THEFT 4-$1000 - W - IND IN02 THEFT 4-$1000 -..LN- SC SC THEFT 4-$1000 - IN0 I NO2 THEFT d-$1000 - SC SC TAKE UVIVESSELW ITHOUT CONSENT SC BREACH OF TRUST !NO14 FRAUO PUBLIC SERVANT INDI4 FRAUDULENTLY TAKE/HOLD/DEFACE/UAKE BRAND l NDS THEFT OF CATTLE IN010 THEFT OF CATTLE I NO2 FRAUDULENTLY TAKE LWER/ALTER WK, ETC l ND5 DEALER DEMING IN CüUBER WOU CONSENT SC DESTROY/CANCEL, ETC tlTLE/SECURlTY/JUD DOC INDIO FRAUDULEKT WNCEALMEHT I ND2 STEAl/FORGE/POSS/USE CREO l T CARD - DEF 301.l(l0) 342.(10) .THEFT OF CREDIT CARO - S.301.1/342 - PUN 301*1(1f) 342.(1?) THEFT OF CRfDlT CARO - S.301.1/312 - PUN 301.2~la-c)342.1C18-c)UNAUTHORIzED USE OF CWPUTER 301.2C 1a-~1342.1 C1r-t)UNAUTHOR t ZEO USE OF WPUTER 301.2(2ab) 342rl.(2ab)UNAUTHORIZED USE OF COUPUTER - DEF 302. (a-c) 343. (a+) ROBBERY: v IOLIBOD HARWASS w/ I NTEM - DEF 302.(d) 343.(d) ROBBERY WltH OFFENSIVE WEAPON - OEF 302.(d) 343.(d) ROBBERY WITH OFFENSIVE WEAPON - DEF 303 344 0 ROBBERY - PUN 304 345. STOPPING MAIL W/IHTENT 10 ROWSEARCH

305.(1) 346. (1 1 ! EXTORT ION O DEF 305.(1.1) 346.(1.1) EXTORTl3N PUN 305 1 (1 ab) 347. (lab) CR 1M INTEREST RATE: AGREEIRECE IVE - OEFa 05-1(1~) 347.(ic) CRIMINAL-INTEREST RATE- PUN- IN0 . l NOS 305.1(ld) 347.(ld) CRlMlNM INTEREST RATE - PUN- SC SC 306. ( 1a-c) 348. ( 1 a-c) BREAK L ENTER W/ I NT ENT/CW l T I NO OFF-DEF 306.Cld) 348.(ld) 0 & E IF RESIDENCE - PUN S.306/348 348.(10) 0&E IF WU-RESID-PUNS.306/348 023 349.(1) BElNG UNLAWFULLY IN OWELLINC-HOUSE 024 350. DEF OF ENTRANCE FOR 8.306,307/348,349 023-025 351.(1,2) POSS HOUSE-BREAK INSTRfDISGUISE W/INTENT O7 3 352. POSS I NSTRWENT T0 BREAK WNEY DEVICES 073 353.(fab) SELL/POSSESS/BUY AU0 MASTER KEY 073 353 b (3) FAIL TO REC TRANS OF KEY - DEF O7 3 353. (43 FAlL TO REC TRANS - PUN S.3tt(3)/353(3) 073 354. (1.2) POSS STOLEN PROP : FROU CANADAIQT HER - DEF 041 355 (a) POSS STOLEN PROPEATY - + j 1 O00 O4 1 355. (b I POSS STOLEN PROPERTY - < S 1000- - I ND 041 355. (bl l) .P?SS STOLEN PROPEATY - < $1000 - SC 041 356.(1i) THEFT FRWUAIL 035 358.(lr) THEFt FRôU UAlL 040 356. [ 1b 1 WSSESS l ON OF MERSf OLEN FRW üAl L O4 1 357. BRIffi.STOLEN PROPERN IHTO CANADA 041 381 .( 1 .Pl FACSE PRETENCE/EXAGGEAATEO 'WENDAT l ON 045 362. (1ab) THEFT BY FRAUD/OBT CREO lT BY FRAUO - DEF 045 38?.(l~) FALSE STATWENT IN WRITINC - CHEQUE 043 362.4 1cd) FALSE STAtEMENT - OTHER : UAKE/KNOW OF 045 362.(2a) FUSE PRET * $1000 S. 320(1A)/362(1A) -PUN 045 362.62bl) FALSE PRET 4 $1000 S. 32O(lA)/362[lA) -PUN 045 362.(2b l l) FALSE PRET SI000 Sm320(1A)/362(1AI -PUN 045 362.(3) OUT CREOIT - S.320(1B-0)/362(18-0) - PUN 045 362.(4,51 FNSE PRETENCE - CHEQUE - MF 043 363.Cab) OBTAIN EXECüTlON OF SECURlTYBY FRAUO 045 364.(1) OBTAIN F000 AND LOOGING 8Y FRAUD OIS 384(2aa) OBTAIN FOOD AN0 COOClNG 8Y FRAUD - OTHER 045 364.(2?) OBTAIN FOOD.'& LOOGIHG-CHEOUE 043 364.C3) OBTAIN FOOD & LOOGINC - CHEOUE - DEF 043 365.(a-cl PRACTISE OF WlTCHCRAFT/SORCERY, ETC 045 366 .(1 ,2) FORGERY/MAKI ffi A FALSE DOCUMENT - DEF 045 367. (1) FORGERY - PUN I ND14 045 368Jlab) UTTER/CAUSE T0 DEAL UITH FORGED OOCWENT lNOl4 045 369.(a-CI. )AAKE/POSS REVENUE PAPER/FORGING EQUIP/SEAL IN014 045 370.(ab) PRINT/TENDER COUNTERFEIT PRûCLAMAT1ON, ETC I ND5 045 371. 1)CT TO DEFAAUD: TELEGRAM IN FMSE NAME 1 NOS 045 372. (1 1: FUSE MESSAGES BY RAD lO/PHûNE/LETTER, ETC I NO2 045 372. ( 2,3) I NDECENT/HARRASS I NG TELEPHONE CNLS SC 073 374. ( ab ~RAWEXEC.DOCUIEM WOUT AUTH TO DEFRAUD fND14 045 375. OBTAIN BY INSTRUMENT BASED OH FORGE0 DûC IN014 045 376.(1,2) FRAUDULEKTLY USE/POSS/COUNTERFElT STAMPS IN014 045 377. ( 1a-4) OAMAGE 00CWENVFRAUOULENT REG 1 S/ELEC DOC I ND5 045 378.(r-c) OFFENCES IN RELATION TO REGISTERS lNOS 045 380. (1 a) FRAUD: MûNEY/?ROP/SECUR l TY + $1000 lNO10 045 380.(lbI) FRAUD: MûNEY/PROP/S€C 4 $1000 - IND I Nb2 045 380.(lbll) FRAUD: WNEY/PROP/SEC 4 $1000 - SC SC 045 380. < 2) CRAU0 AFFECT lNG PUBL I C WUET lNOIO 045 381. FRAUO THROUGH WlLS lNO2 045 382.Ca-c) FRAUOULEHT MANIP OF STOCK EXCHANGE TRANS 1NOS 045 383.C1) FRAUDGAMING INSTOCKS,MERCHANûISE i NOS 045 384.Cab) 8RûJCER REDUC STOCK BY SECL FOR OWN ACCT lNOS 045 385. Cl ab) FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF T ITLES l ND2 O' 386.Ca-cl FRAUDULENTLY REGISTER TlTLE lNOS 387. FRAUOULENT SNE OF REAL 'PROPERTY lNO2 388.Cab) FRAUDULEH~/UISLEAOIMGRECEIPT: GIVE/ACCEPT 1 ND2 FRAUOULEW O ISPOSAL OF ,U)ODS : DEL I V/ASS I ST FRAUOULENT RECElPTS UNOER BANK ACT DEFRAUD CRED IT IORS : ISPOSE/RECE IVE PROP FRAUD RE FARES/OBTAIN TRANSPO BY FRAUO FRAUD IN RELATION TO YINERALS FRAUO OFFENCES IN RELAT ION TO Y INES FALSiFY BOWS, ETC/PRIW TO CWISSION FAi I SFY €MPLOWEN'T RECORD FALSE RETURN BY PUBLIC OFFICER:SW/BMANCE FUSE PROSPECTUS WI 1 mm 359.(1) 401.C1) OBTAIN TRANSPO BY FAlSE/UISLEAD BlLtlNG SC 360.(1) 402.(1) TRADER FAILIffi TO KEEQ ACCOUNTS I ND2 361.(&-~) 403.(8-C) PERM1ION W lTH INTENT I NO14 362 404. PERSONATION AT EXAMINATION SC 363. 405. ACKNOWLEOGE INSTRWEM IN FALSE WE l ND5 364.(ab) 406.Cab) FOeGlNG TRME UARK: WE/FMS I FY - DEF 365. 407. FORG lNG OFFENCE - DEF 366.(& 408.Cab) PASSINC OFF - WARES/SERVICES - DEF 367.(1) 409. (1 1 POSS INSTaU FOR FORGING TRAOE MARK - DEF 368.(ab) 4tO.(ab) OTHER OFF 1N RELATION TO TRADE MARKS - DEF 360. 411. SALE OF USE0 COOOS W/OUT DISCLOSURE - DEF 370.(la) 412.Ua) PUNISHMEHT FOR 5.365-369/407-411 - I)iQ) l ND2 370.(lb) 412.(lb) PUN l SHMENT FOR S. 365-3691407-411 - SC SC 371. 413. FALSELY CLAIMING ROYAL WARRANT SC 373.(a-O) 4tS.(a-e) OFFENCES IN RELATION TO WRECK - DEF 373.(f) 415.Cf) OFFENCES IN RELATION TO WRECK - PUN - IN0 IN02 373. (0) 415. Cg) OFFENCES IN REUT ION TO wREa - PUN - SC SC 375. (lab) 417.(Iab) APPLY/REWVE DlSTlNG URKS'W/OUT AUTHOR IND2 375.(Pa) 417.(2a) UNLAWFUL TRAM IN PUBLIC STORES - IND INo2 375. (Pb) 417.C2b) UHLAWFUL TAANS IN PUBL l C STORES - SC SC 376.(1,2a) 418.(1,2a) SELL DEFECT STORES TO H .Ms/OFF BY EMPCOYEE IN014 377 . 410. UNLAWFUL USE OF MILITARY UNIFORUS/CERTlF SC 378.(1a) 420.(la) BUYjRECEIVE MILITARY STORES - JND lNOS 378. (lb) 420.(lb) BüY/RECEIVE YILlTARY STORES - SC SC 380.(la-8) 422.(la-a) CRlYlrUL BREACH Of COKTRACT - DEF 380.(1f) 422.(lf) -CRIU BREACH - PUN S.380[1)/422(1) - INû l NOS 380.[1g) 422.(19) CRIM BREAU4 -.PUN S.380(1)/422(1) - SC SC 381.Cla-g) 423.tla-g) INiIUtDATlON - VlOtENCE/THREAT, ETC SC 381.1 424. THREAT TO INTERNAT IONALLY ?ROT ECTED PERSON l NûS 382.m-cl 425.(a-cb UFfENCES BV EMPLOYERS SC 383. (lab) 428. (rab) SECRET -1 SS IONS: BR IBE/DECE IVE - DEF 383. (2) 426.(2) PRlW TO COUl OF S.383(1)142B(t) OFF -DEÇ 383. (3) 426. (3) SECRET CûWISS1ONS - S.383/426 - PUN l NOS 384.(1,2) 427.(1,2) ISSU€/SELC TRADING STAMPS SC 387.(1a-dl 430.(la-d) MlSCHlEF: ONAGE PROP/OBSTRUCT PERSON, ETC 387.Cla-dl 430.(ta-d) MISCHIEF: DAMAGE PROP/OBSTRUCT PERSON, .ETC 387.(1.1) 430~1.1) MlSCHlEF RE DATA - DEF 387.(1*1) 430.(1.1) UlSCHlEF RE OATA - DEF 387.C2) 430.(2) MISCHIEF: CAUSE DANGER TO LIfE INOCIF 387.C3a) 430a(3a) MlSCHlEF 70 PROP + $1000-PUN - INû IN010 387.(3b) 430.(3b) UISCHiEF TO-PRO? + $1000-PUN-SC SC 38744s) 430.C4aI MISCHIEF TO PRO? 4 $1000 - PUH -'IND . !Mo2 387.C4b) 430.(4b) MISCHIEC TO~PAO?~$~~~~-PUN-SC. SC. 3874Sa) 430.CSa) MISCHIEF WtTH DATA - PUN - IND IN010 387.CSa) 430.(Sa) M~SCHIEF WITH.OA~A- PUN- IN0 IW10 387,CSb) 430.(Sb) MISCHIEF UlTH OATAo?UN-SC SC 387.(Sb) 430-(5b) MISCHIEF WlTH DATA - PUN - SC SC 387,(5,1a) 130.(5.1a) WIL ACT/ûülS LIKELY 70 CAUSE UISCHIEF -IN0 INOS 7.(5.lb) '430.(5.lb) WIL ACTIWIS LlKELl TO CAUSE YtSCHlEF -SC SC 40.1 431. ENDANGER 1NT ERHAT IONALLY PROTECT€0 PERSON I ND1 4 389.C1) 433.(1) ARSON-WICFUL IN014 389.(2) 433, (2) ARSON - PERSONAL PROPERTY f ND5 390,Cab) 434.(ab) SET FIRE TO S.389(1)/433(1) PROWOTHER I ND5 392.(lab) 436.(lab) SETTING FlRE BY NEGLICENCE l NOS 393Aa) 437, (a) FALSE F IRE ALARU - IND I ND2 393. (b) 437. (b) FMSE F l RE ALARM - SC SC 394.(1) 438.(1) ImERFERE WITH SAVlNG OF WRECKED VESSEL I NOS 394. (2) 438. (2) IKTERFERE WlTH SAVING OF WRECK SC 395.(1) 439. (1 ) FASTEN VESSEL TO S I GKAL/BUOY SC 395.(2) 439.(2) WILFULLY ALTERfINTERFERE W/MARlNE SIGNAL 1ND10 398 440. REMûVE NATURAL BAR NECESSARY fO HARBOUR IN02 397. 441. OCCUPANT INJURES BUILDING INOS 398. 442. IWERFERE WlTH WUNDUIY CINE SC

399.(1) 443 O INTERFER€ W/INTERHAtlONAL BûüNDARY UARK INOS 400.(ab) 444Jab) INJURE OR ENDANGER CA~E l NO5 401.(ab) 4SS.(ab) INJURE OR ENDANGER OTHER ANIMALS SC 402. COUHSELLlNG OFFENCE WT COWltTEO - IWO I ND 422*(b) 464.(b) CûUNSELLING OFFENCE HOT CWITTEO - SC SC 423.(1a) 46S.(la) CONSPIRE TO MITMUROER lNOL IF 423.(lbl) 465.(1bl) CONSPIRE TO PROSECUTE - INDLlF/14 IWO10 423.(1bll) 465,(1bIl) CONSPIRE TO PROSECUTE - IN0 414 1 ND5 423.(14) 465.(1c) CûNSPlRETOCOMllT INOICTABLEOFFENCE 1ND ,. 423.(1e) 465.(1d) CWSPIRE TO CWIT SC OFFENCE SC 442,(3) 486.(3) OROER RESTRICTING PU0LlCATlON OF 10 442. (4) 486.(4) FAlL 5'0 CûMPLY ÙITH S.442(3)/486(3) ORDER SC 443.2(1) 487.2(1) PUBLlSH INFORMATIONRE SEARCH WARRM SC 457,2(1) 517.C1) PUBLlSHlNG BAN FOR SPECIFIED PERIOO 457.2(2) 517.C2) FAtL TO CûMPLY VlTH PUSLISHtNG BAH SC 48t.Cla-dl S39.(la-d) OROER OlRECTfNG EVIDENCE WT BE PUBLISHED 467.(3) 539.C3) FAlLTOCOMPtYWltHS.467(1)539(1)0ROER SC PUB1 CONFESS/ADiAISSION TENDEREO AS EVID SC WtTNESS REFUSE TO BE EXAMIHED - DEF ORDER RELEASE OF EXHl8lTS FOR TESTING FAlL r0 CWPCY W ITH RELEASE OROER SC RESTR ON PUBLICATION WHlLE JURY SEPAR -DEF RESTR ON PUBLICATION WHILE JURY SEPAR -PUN SC DISCLOSURE OF JURY PROCEEDINGS SC CONTEMPT: FAIL TO ATTENO COURT - DEF CONTEMPT: FA1t TO AT1END COURT - PUN SC REVOKE PROBAT I ON ORDER VARIATION OF PRO0ATlON OROER BREACH OF PROBAT ION - PUN SC OANGEROUS OFFENOERS - OEF DANGEROUS OFFENDERS - PUN INDL f F FAIUREFUSE TO ENTER INTO RECOGNIZMCE SC BREACH OF RECOGNIZANCE UNDER S.7451810 SC

FOOD AND ORUG ACT

FAlL TO OISCLOSE PREVIOUS PRESCIPTION FA11 TO DISCLOSE PREVIOUS PRESCIPTION I ND3 FAlL TO DISCLOSE PREVIOUS PRESCIPTiON SC CONTROLLEO DRUGS: TRAFFIC - DEF CONTROCLEO DRUGS: INTENT TO TRAFFIC - DEF IHTENT T0 TRAFFIC: AMPHETAMINES - SC SC INTENT TO TRAFFIC: BAROITURATES - SC SC INTENT TO TRAFFIC: UETHEDRINE - SC SC INTENT TO TRAFFIC: CONTROLLED DRUG - SC SC INT TO TRAF: UNKNOWN CONTROLLEO DRUG - SC SC TRAFFICKING: AMPHETAMINES - SC SC TRAFFICKING: BARBITURATES - SC SC TRAFFICKING: METHEDRINE - SC SC TRAFFICKING: CONTROLLED DRUG - SC SC TRAFFICKING: UNKWWN CONTROLLED ORUG - SC SC INTENT TO TRAFFIC: AMPHETAUINES - IN0 IN010 INTENT TO TRAFFIC: BARBITURATES - IN0 l ND1 O INTENT TO TRAFFIC: METHEDRINE - IN0 IN010 INTENT TO TRAFFIC: CONTROCCED ORUG - IND IN010 INT -10TRAF: UNKWWN CONTROLLEO DRUG - IND INOIO TRAFFICKING: AMPHETAMINES - IN0 IN010 TRAFFICKING: BARBITURATES - IND IN010 TRAFFICKtNG: METHEORINE - IN0 IN010 TRAFFICKING: CONTROLLED DRUG - IN0 l ND1 O TRAFFICKING: UNKNOWN CONTROLLED ORUG - !ND INDlO RESTRICTEO OfiUGS: POSSESSION - DEF POSSESSION: LSD - SC SC POSSESSION: MDA - SC SC POSSESSION: OTHER RESTRlCTED DRUC - SC SC POSSESSION: PSlLOCYBlN - SC SC POSSESSION: UNKNOWN RESTRICTED DRUG - SC SC POSSESSION: CS0 - IN0 IND3 POSSESSION: UDA - IN0 INO3 POSSESSION: OTHER RESTRlCTED DRUG - IND I NO3 POSSESSION: PSlLOCYBlN - IN0 I NO3 POSSESSION: UWNûWN RESTRICTEO DRUG - IN0 lND3 RESTRICTEO DRUGS: TRAFFIC - DEF RESTRICTED ORUGS: INTENT TO TRAFFIC - OEF INTENT TO TRAFFIC: LSD - SC SC IKTENT TO TRAFFIC: YOA - SC SC INTENf TO TRAFFIC: OTHER RESTR ORUG - SC SC INTENT TO TRAFFIC: PSILOCYBIN - SC SC INTENT TO TRAFFIC: UNKNOWN RESTR ORUG - SC SC TRAFF ICKING: LSO - SC SC TRAFFICKING: UOA - SC SC TRAFF 1 CK 1 NG : OTHER RESTR 1 CTED ORUG - SC SC TRAFFICKING: PS!LOCYBIN - SC SC TRAFFICKING: UNKNOWN RESTRICTE0 DRUG - SC SC INTENT TO TRAFFIC: LSD - IN0 INDtO lHTENT 7'0 TRAFFIC: MDA - IN0 lHD1O !KENT 10 TRAFFIC: OTHER RESTR DRUG - IND IN010 iNTENT TO TRAFFIC: PSILOCYBIH - IND IN010 INTENT TO TRAFFIC: UMCNOWN RESTR ORUG -IN0 INOtO TRAFFICKIW: LSD - IM) INDlO TRAFFICKING: UDA - IN0 IN010 TRAFF ICK ING: OTHER RESTR l CTED ORUG - 1 ND INO10 TRAFFICKING: PS1LOCYEIN - IN0 lNDtO TRAFFICKING: UNKNOWN RESTRICTED ORUG - IN0 lNO1O

NARCOf lC CONTROC ACT

NARWTICS: POSSESSION - DEF POSSESSION: HEROIN - SC POSSESSION: COCAINE - SC POSSESSION: METHADONE - SC POSSESSION: OTHER OPIATES - SC POSSESS ION : OTHER NCA DRUG - SC POSSESSION: UNKHOWN KAORUG - SC POSSESSION: CANNABIS - SC POSSESSION: - IN0 POSSESSION: COCAINE - IND POSSESSION: METHADONE - 1ND POSSESSION: OTHER OPlAfES - IN0 POSSESSION: OTHER NCA DRUG - IND POSSESS ION: U-WN KA DRUG - I NO POSSESS ION: CANW IS - IND' FAlL DISCLOSE PREVIOUS PRESCtPTIOH FAlL OISCLOSE PREVIOUS PRESClPTlON FAIL DISCLOSE~PREVIOUSPRESCIPTION NARCOTICS: TRAFFIC - DEf NARCOTICS: INTEMT TO TRAFFIC - DEF INTENT fO TRAFFIC: HEROIN INDLIF TRAFFICKING: HEROIN lNDLlF INTENT TO TRAFFIC: COCAINE INOLIF TRAFFICKING: COCAINE INDLIF INTEHT TO TRAFFIC: METHADONE INOLIF INTEHT TO TRAFFIC: OTHER OPIATES INDLIF INTENT TO TRAFFIC: OTHER NCA ORUG INDLlF INTENT TO TRAFFIC: U))#NOWN NCA DRUG INOLIF TRAFFICKING: METHADONE INDLIF TRAFFICKING: OtHER OPlATES INDLIF TRAFFICKING: OTHER NCA DRUG INOLIF TRAFFICKING: UhKNOWN NCA DRUG INOLIF INTENT TO TRAFF IC: CANNAE 1 S TRAFFICKING: CANNABIS NARCOTICS: lMPORT - DEF IMPORTING: HEROIN IMPORTING: COCAINE I MPORT I NG : UETHADONE IMPORTING: OTHER OPIATES IUPORTING: OTHER NCA DRUG IMPORTING: UNKNOWN NCA DRUG IMPORTING: CANNABIS NARCOT 1 CS : CULT IVATE - OEF CULTIVATE: CANNABIS OANGEROUS OPERATION OF MV - DEF DANGEROUS OPERAT ION OF UV - OEF DANGEROUS OPERAT ION OF W - DEf OANGEROUS OPERATION OF VESSEL - DEF OANGEROUS OPERATlON Of VESSEL - DEf OANGEROUS OPERATION OF VESSEL - DEF OANGEROUS OPERAT t ON OF Al RCRAFT - DEF OANGEROUS OPERATION OF A IRCRAFT - DEF OANGEROUS OPERAT ION OF AIRCRAFT - DEF OANGEROUS OPERATION - PUN S.233(1)/249(1) INOS OANGEROUS OPERAT f ON - PUN S. 233( 1 )/249( 1 ) J NOS OANGEROUS OfERAT ION - PUN S. 233( 1 )/24Q( 1 1 SC DANGEROUS OPERAT ION - PUN S .233<1 )/24Qt 1 1 SC DANGEROUS OPERAT lON CAUS l NG BO0 lLY HARM OANGEROUS OPERAT ION CAUS l NG 800 1LY HARM OANGEROUS OPERAT ION CAUS lNG OEAT H OAHGEROUS OPERAT ION CAUS I NG OEAT H HIT & RUN PERSOH H IT & RUN PERSON H I T 6 RUN MV/VESSEL/A IRCRAFT H lT & RUN MV/VESSEL/A t RCRAFT IUPAIREO DR1VING:W - DEF IMPAIRE0 ORIVlNG:B/V/A - DEF fWAIRED DR1VING:MV - DEF IMPAIRE0 ORIV NG:B/V/A - DEF IMPAIRE0 DRlV NG:W - OEF IMPAIRED ORIV NG:B/V/A - DEF ORlVlNG ABOVE .08:UV - DEF ORlVlNG ABOVE B/V/A - DEF ORlVlNG ABOVE UV - OEF ORlVlNG ABOVE WV/A - OEF ORIVlffi A8OVE:W - OEF OR 1 V l ffi ABOVE :B/V/A - DEF FAf LIREFUSE BREATH SAMPLE - DEF FA1 L/REFUSE BL000 SAMPLE - DEF FAIL/R€FUSE TO PROVIDE SAMPCE - DEF FAIL/REFUSE TO PROV tOE SAMPLE - DEF MIN PUH - S.237,238/253,254 - FIRST:$300 MIN PUN - S.237,238/253,254 - FIRST:S300 239.(Iall) ZSS.(lall) MIN PUN - S.237,238/253,254 - SECOND:140 239. (la1 1) 2SS.(lal 1) MIN PUN - S.237,238/253,254 - SECûND:140 23% (la1 11)2SS.(lal 11)MIN PUN - S.237,238/253,254 - SUBSEQ:900 239.(lai l i)2SS.(iai I I)MIN PUN - S.237,238/253,254 - SU8SEQ:900 239. (lb) 255. (lb) MAX PUN - 5.237,238/253,254 239.(1c) 2SS.(ic) MAX PUN- S.237,238/253,254 239. (2) 255. (2) IMPA I RE0 OR IV CAUSE BO0 .HARM:W 239.(2) 255.(2) l UPA l RED OR IV CAUSE BO0 .HARU:B/V/A 239.(3) 255.(3) IMPAlREO ORIVING CAUSING 0EATH:UV 239.(3) 255.(3) IMPAIRE0 ORlVlNC CAUSING DEATH:B/V/A 242.(4a) 259.(4a) OPERATE VEHICLEWlLEOlSOUAllFlEO 242. (4b) 259. (4b) OPERAT5 VEHICLE WHILE DISQUALIF fE0 IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (QA-3)

APPUED -4 IWGE . lnc -= t 653 East Man Street ,=; ,=; Rochester. NY 14609 USA ----- Phone: 7 1 61482-0300 =-= Fax: 716/288-5989

O 1993. Apgiied Image. lm.. All Rights Reseived