Pardon Our Language

The problem with the Graham James pardon is semantics, not the law itself.

The prime minister got it wrong. Apparently he didn’t bother to consult the law before he launched an attack on the parole board for pardoning Graham James. Stephen Harper’s “shock” that he wasn’t informed of the pardon is ridiculous given that there were more than 14,000 pardons in 2006-07. As Harper should have known, in pardoning Graham James, the parole board acted entirely properly. Indeed, it had little choice in the matter.

However, there’s no question that the pardon came as a shock and an affront to justice, especially for James’ victims. There are two problems with the pardon. First, the law goes too far: it states that the pardon means the “conviction in respect of which the pardon is granted or issued should no longer reflect adversely on the applicant’s character.” For my money, that’s too strong.

Of course the sexual offenses he committed reflect adversely on James. They always will. I’m not sure of the best way to reword this section, but it should somehow make it clear that the intent is not to condone the acts. Perhaps it could be rewritten to say that the conviction will not be taken into account in hiring or otherwise, except insofar as the crime is directly relevant. Thus, those who are convicted of abusing children should not be hired to coach boys’ hockey, but their crime should not exclude them from working in a bank; meanwhile, bank robbers could not work in a bank but could perhaps coach hockey.

The other problem is that what the parole board provided was not a “pardon” as most of us understand that term. The word usually means that a person is excused or forgiven for having committed an act. Surely no one is forgiving James for having sexually assaulted boys. Rather, the “pardon” is a device designed to make it easier for convicted criminals to get on with their lives by having their criminal records segregated.

Virtually everyone who asks for a pardon receives one. They’re obviously not given on the basis of evaluating the original offense or the worthiness of the criminal. The idea is to let someone start over once they have served their sentence and not reoffended for a number of years. It’s probably true that sex offenders are among the mostly likely criminals to repeat their offenses, although as far as we know, James hasn’t committed a crime in the five years since he was released. In any case, the law provides that those convicted of these offenses are flagged so that the police and others will have some warning. But even these offenders deserve the chance to lead a decent life. Otherwise, we may as well change the law and put them in prison forever.

So let’s make a simple change. Let’s call this something other than a “pardon,” which is clearly the wrong term. Call it “limited access to records,” or, making up a term, something like “Level S” status (for segregated records). I don’t think people would be especially upset to learn that Graham James had been granted Level S status for his crimes, especially since he would still be flagged as a sexual offender. But Level S status would still make it somewhat easier for those who have been convicted and served their time to re-enter society.

The point is that the law makes sense (in that it gives those who have served their time and been good for five years a chance to get on with their lives), and the prime minister has overreacted. But he is right, as are James’ victims, that there should be no suggestion that the vile acts have been excused. Keep the law, change some of the language in it, and substitute some other term for “pardon,” and we can achieve the original purpose without offending the victims and the rest of society.