Evidence-Based Criminal Justice Policy for Canada: An Exploratory Study of Public Opinion and the Perspective of Mental Health and Legal Professionals N. Kate Bousfield, Alana N. Cook, and Ronald Roesch Simon Fraser University Increasingly, scholars are identifying the need for evidence-based justice policy. There has been, and continues to be, changes in Canadian criminal justice acts, such as Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Community Act (2012). Bill C-10 amended several criminal justice acts, including the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2002), Criminal Code (1985), Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (1996), and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (1992). The amendments introduced by Bill C-10 were made in the name of public safety, yet according to empirical evidence, the potential ramifications of these changes appear to counter these notions. The purpose of the current research was to compare public opinion with the opinions of mental health and legal professionals prior to and after the presentation of evidence, including academically recognised social science research, to examine whether exposure to empirical evidence would change public opinions of justice policy. Participants consisted of 2 groups: (a) members of the Canadian public, and (b) mental health and legal professionals who work internationally with adults or youth who are either currently involved with, or at risk of becoming involved with, the criminal justice system. Quantitative analyses demonstrated that opinions from the general public were varied, but became more similar to the perspectives of mental health and legal professionals after the presentation of empirical evidence. Qualitative analyses offered insight into participant decisions and concerns. The results support the paradigm shift to evidence-based justice policy and the importance of educating Canadians in order to increase awareness of Canadian policies and social science literature. Keywords: evidence-based crime and justice policy, reforms, public safety, public opinion, Canada Increasingly, scholars are identifying the need for evidence- based justice policy (Cook & Roesch, 2012; Haney, 2002). There has been, and continues to be, changes in Canadian criminal justice acts—such as Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Community Act (2012)—that are not evidence based (see Barbaree et al., 2012). Bill C-10 was passed in Canada on March 13, 2012, and amended several criminal justice acts, including the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2002), Criminal Code, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (1996), and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (1992) (Parliament of Canada, 2012). The current exploratory research study focused on four key aspects of the omnibus crime bill. First, Bill C-10 introduced the underlying sentencing principles of specific de- terrence and denunciation and broadened the definition of vio- lent crimes to include recklessness in the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2002) (Parliament of Canada, 2012). Second, rather than using case-by-case discretion, the Crown is now required to consider adult sentence applications for all youth aged 14 to 17 years convicted of certain serious, violent offences (Parliament of Canada, 2012). Third, Bill C-10 further tight- ened the regulations regarding conditional release in the Cor- rections and Conditional Release Act (1992) (Parliament of Canada, 2012). Fourth, Bill C-10 added mandatory minimum sentences to both the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (1996) (Parliament of Canada, 2012). Upon receipt of Royal Assent, the Government of Canada publicly declared that the criminal justice amendments of Bill C-10 were made in the name of short- and long-term public protection (Department of Justice, Office of the Minister of Justice, 2012). Further, the government noted that Bill C-10 represented a fulfilled campaign promise made in response to the demands of Canadian citizens (Department of Justice, Office of the Minister of Justice, 2012). However, empirical evidence suggests that the Bill C-10 amendments may counter the intended outcomes of community safety in the long term. Informed advocacy concerns regarding Bill C-10 were raised to the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs by several organisations, including the Canadian Psychological Association (Barbaree et al., 2012), The John Howard Society of Canada (2012), the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network (2012), the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (2012), the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children (2012), Justice for Children and Youth (2011), and the Canadian Bar Association (2011). Despite these efforts, Bill C-10 was enacted. N. Kate Bousfield, Alana N. Cook, and Ronald Roesch, Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ronald Roesch, Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6. E-mail: roesch@sfu.ca Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne © 2014 Canadian Psychological Association 2014, Vol. 55, No. 3, 204 –215 0708-5591/14/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036860 204