Guest Blog

What If?

At a recent presentation to new members of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council, its Executive Director Christiane Sadeler displayed a slide with the following quote from Eric Young who is considered “a driving force for social innovation“.

Recognize Complexity
Accept Uncertainty
Embrace Possibility
Trust Community
Proceed with Humanity

©  Eric Young, “Innovators in Action” Speaker Series 2010

These words from Mr. Young struck me as particularly relevant to the discussions ongoing in Ottawa and in the media about Bill C-10 and Bill C-30, both of which have created controversy in crime prevention circles. I wasn’t an attendee for his speech so do not want to quote him out of context but, if I may, I’d like to propose what he has said as a lens through which the government could determine the need for, and the path of, legislation related to crime.

Bill C-10, “The Safe Streets and Communities Act”, is a compilation of legislation that the government was unable to enact when it was in the minority in the parliament of Canada. Having won a majority of the seats in the current House of Commons, the government is now able to put forth legislation without fear of losing a vote of confidence. In other words, they can pretty much do what they want. This political reality has led to what many consider to be a “tough on crime” approach. Bill C-10 will restrict the discretion often used by judges in imposing sentences, will create more mandatory minimum sentences, reduce house arrest options (both of which will increase incarceration rates and the budget required to pay for this), make it more difficult to secure pardons and be tougher on “out of control” youth (their words, not mine). While this will seem a litany of the deficits in the Bill, it will also make it more difficult to traffic in drugs and people and allow more rights to victims of crime, both of which are arguably good things. Bill C-30, also known as the “Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act” has been widely criticized for allowing more intrusive searches of IP addresses by police without a warrant signed by a judge. Critics fear a “Big Brother” (in the form of police and security agencies) will be able to install its own surveillance equipment on the networks of service providers in order to better track the Internet traffic of Canadian citizens. Critics have argued further that the police, by and large, already have the ability to investigate the trafficking of child porn, for example, under current legislation. To the government’s credit they are slowing down the legislative process in order to give more opportunity to improve the Bill in answer to its critics.

All of which brings me back to what many could justifiably consider my naive and idealistic world view. If the government viewed crime prevention with Mr. Young’s words in mind, might the results be different? For example, we know from data provided by the government’s own agency, StatsCan, that the crime rate continues on a downward trend, yet many citizens report a fear of crime which, on the face of the data, seems unreasonable. The root causes of crime are varied and complex but are worsened by unemployment, financial uncertainty, addictions and mental health issues. If we use Mr. Young’s words, we need to “recognize complexity”. It is not enough to create legislation to assuage fears that are not based on available data about the prevalence of crime. Instead, would we not be better to be “smart on crime” by understanding and mitigating the root causes? What if the $100,000 it costs annually to incarcerate one person in a Canadian prison was invested in anti-poverty and education approaches that allow for greater opportunities for pro-social behaviour? Would we see a corresponding decrease in crime and perhaps even in our taxes over time as more people become employable? Would be then be less fearful of crime?

What about “accepting uncertainty“? I concede that most governments don’t want to admit that they just don’t have all the answers as it won’t help garner votes. Given the increasingly technological world in which we live and the globalization of our economy that is highly influenced by the financial woes of foreign nations, things do become more uncertain. People are incredibly complex as well, they often do not respond as predicted. Therefore, if government accepted the premise that there are some things we just don’t know, perhaps we could see more resources put into pilot programs and research as opposed to incarceration and the infrastructure to support it.

With this as our approach we are “embracing possibility”. We are creating a more hopeful and intentional stance in regards to working with those on the margins who commit crime. I am seasoned enough to know that not all criminals are good people who have just made a wrong turn somewhere due to economic difficulty or because of an addiction. I accept the fact that some may in fact be evil. Prisons exist for those folks, no argument from me.

If we “trust community” we will embrace community development initiatives that prevent crime by empowering and encouraging  community members to take more ownership in creating safe places in their respective neighbourhoods. Waterloo Region is blessed by its tradition of neighbourhood associations proactively working together to improve living conditions in many parts of the region, simply through the cleanup of parks, streets, and common areas. Community associations also provide support to new Canadians, new moms and dads, youth and younger kids. They work with parents, schools and police in a ‘wraparound’ concept of community development. The answer then isn’t necessarily more legislation. It’s more community development.

Lastly, if we “proceed with humanity” we demonstrate compassion and optimism. We are less reactive and more proactive. We realize that one size does not fit all. We encourage innovation and discourage degradation. Can you imagine our community if we fully enacted Eric Young’s call to action?  Over time, the need for a Crime Prevention Council would be reduced because we will have learned it makes more sense, socially and economically to be ‘smart on crime’ as opposed to ‘tough on crime’.

I’m interested in your thoughts on this one. Could these be valid ‘guiding principles’ for the future?

Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.

Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council.

The Face of Youth Court

As someone lucky enough to be a mere observer of the criminal justice system and not a participant, my curiosity was peaked when I heard a young offender (let’s call him Henry) speak about his experiences and the wisdom gained as a result. Henry and I met recently to give me a close-up view of the perspective of someone who has been affected by the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), an act that has been widely praised for the balance it strikes between compassion and consequence. Much of the rationale given by the Minister of Justice in regards to the changes to the Act, as part of Bill C-10, is in regards to what he perceives to be “out of control youth”. Now, in my time as a school principal I probably met many of the young people who, for a period of time, might fall into this category.  But, isn’t anyone who commits a crime temporarily out of control?

Everyone has a different story so legislation like Bill C-10 that severely reduces the discretion judges can use knowing the story behind the youth and the crime is disturbing. Judges need this discretion because every person coming before the bench is unique and, what works for some won’t work for all. Some young offenders never come into contact with the courts or police ever again because they have benefitted from the alternative measures and diversion programs designed to do just that. Whereas others, like Henry, aren’t helped by them, not because they aren’t good programs but participation in them requires a commitment not every offender is able to give because they aren’t ready for it. Human nature is incredibly complex, requiring a nuanced approach that C-10 does not seem to offer.

Henry allowed me to hear his story one afternoon recently. In order to protect his identity I have changed some of the facts in his story. Henry was an inmate in the correctional system more than once. He has seen it up close.  Not a pretty place, though it can bring structure and support to some who might need it. There are some guards who are helpful and hopeful and others who are disrespectful of inmates and abuse their authority through the arbitrary loss of points inmates can use for privileges. It’s not an easy place to maintain one’s dignity, particularly with overcrowding (which is already seen in many jails and prisons and will only worsen under C-10). Being brought to court for remands and made to wait hours in cuffs and shackles for the appearance and then to wait again for the return to jail was frustrating. Made to sit on a concrete bench for hours doesn’t help one maintain a sense of dignity. For Henry court was a frustrating experience because it seemed no one was interested in his side of the story as his lawyer did most of the interaction with the judge and court officials.

The adolescent brain is still in a stage of maturation and has not fully developed the capability to reason thoughtfully. Many young people don’t take the time to reason out the impulse to act out, whether it results in a theft, a fight, a threat or a robbery. Steven Pinker, in his book “The Better Angels of our Nature” says “The arc of crime in adolescence is the outcome of these inner forces [sensation-seeking and competitiveness] pushing and pulling in different directions (p.600-601). Young people, if Henry is an exemplar, do not always take the time to reason out the deterrence factors of the penalties associated with laws. It’s not necessarily in their biological nature during adolescence. It is evolving and not fully-formed.

As part of the program at inREACH, Henry has learned about brain development and the role it has played in his discernment process. Through the lessons learned there he has come to personify what Pinker says…”In the long run, self-control gains the upper hand when it is fortified by experience which teaches adolescents that thrill-seeking and competitiveness have costs and that self-control has rewards” (p 601).

Not only has he learned valuable lessons himself but he hopes others can too. He especially hopes police will take every opportunity to be people and not just their roles. He hopes that more can be gained by listening and offering respect than a heavy hand or preconceptions about youth. In his view, some officers think fear is better than respect. Thankfully that has not been the attitude of every officer or correctional staff member. He also learned that family is more important than friends, maybe making truth of the old saying that “blood is thicker than water”. Henry’s family has been there for him, at each court appearance and with regular visits when he was incarcerated. He has come to a deeper appreciation of them.

Henry’s is just one story and I wish I could tell it more fully but I don’t want to take the chance of anyone identifying him because of this article. There are many stories of youth who haven’t had the support of family, school or programs like inREACH. Henry has taken the support he’s been given and made himself a better person. He hopes to use his experiences to help others as a career and will likely be a positive influence in the lives of many others. He is resilient. My worry is for those for whom the harsher strictures of C-10 will turn the benefits of the YCJA into something destructive.

A Story of Wrong

A wise friend once told me that when she meets with an inmate, she’ll try to picture them as a five year old.

More than any other document, inmates are often keen to share their autobiographies with me. Often, these are painstakingly written as part of a family violence program in a prison.

The mail arrives. Another bulky package. A dozen stamps on the front. It’s from someone who goes by a number.

What became of that little boy? How did he get off-track? What was missing – love, care, affirmation – when he was a child? What was present – violence, abuse, shame – that should not have been?

Another person wants me to know their story. To actually know them. To actually see them. Not in the way that everyone else does.

When we do something wrong, we want to tell a story about how it happened. When others do, we want to remove the behaviour from its context.

I could probably tell many of the stories without ever reading them. Neither comedy, nor sufficient drama, they are tragedies.

A boy beaten with electrical wire. Kindergarten-age children tied to trees in thunderstorms. Not that uncommon or even the most outrageous of what is written.

No one notices.

Actually, that’s wrong, society does notice: when they break the law as adults, we give them what they deserve.

Judah Oudshoorn is a Professor at Conestoga College in the Community and Criminal Justice Degree program, a restorative justice mediator in the Canadian federal prison system and a PhD student at the University of Toronto.  More importantly, he likes chocolate chip cookies, books and lawnmowers.  Most importantly, he is a proud dad and partner.  Judah can be contacted at joudshoorn@conestogac.on.ca

Someone needs to learn their times tables

Some time ago two articles from the Globe and Mail collided with such force that it woke me from my early morning stupor. Without the clarity induced by several cups of coffee, I might not have made the connection. The first article by Margaret Wente, “ Why Alex can’t add (or subtract, multiply or divide)“, attracted my attention as a retired teacher. Ms. Wente was at her incisive best in calling into question the most recent trend in mathematics education which stresses a language-based approach to the learning of mathematics. With this, teachers have students talk and write about their solutions with an emphasis on being able to explain the rationale behind a particular answer as opposed to the more traditional rote approach of memory work, such as the multiplication tables and dividing the smaller number into the bigger number, as those from my age group remember so well. She, and a growing number of teachers and university professors are worried because these “basics” are not being taught; the result being a lack of understanding of simple mathematical processes which can harm students not only in university, but with balancing a chequebook. The other article, “Huge price tag for provinces attached to crime bill” by Kim Mackrael highlighted the hidden but expected costs of implementing Bill C-10. The Globe and Mail used information available from background papers noting the cost of full implementation of the bill could be much higher than recent estimates offered by the Minister of Justice. These papers suggest that changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act alone could cost an estimated $717 million over a five-year period whereas the Minister is pegging the bill for the entire “Safe Streets and Communities Act” at $78.6 million over five years with the expectation that the provinces will pony up half the costs. That’s quite a difference.

There seemed to be silence from some provinces about the downloading of the costs for a bill they did not support. Except for Ontario and Quebec, not much was being said. Then in an article from January 26th in The Globe and Mail, it was reported that  the Ontario government, along with most other provincial governments, have attached estimates to their already strained budgets caused by the implementation of Bill C-10. Ontario’s Minister of Correctional Services is quoted as saying the cost to the province for its implementation will be close to one billion dollars. Yes, $1B . It looks smaller when it is not spelled out but it’s still a whack of money…our money.

Now, I was never a math whiz but that works out to almost 10 times more than the Minister said it would be. Ten times. Wow! Maybe he should have spent more time on his multiplication tables. Can you imagine trying to convince a significant other that a projected purchase is one figure and then it turns out to be ten times more than the agreed upon price? Now, when I say ‘agreed upon’, that doesn’t even come close to describing the reaction of provincial governments like Ontario and Quebec which reject the notion that they should be paying costs of more people (particularly young offenders) being sent to prison because of the new mandatory minimum sentences. There really isn’t much agreement between the two levels of government on the approach evident in C-10. In fact, it flies in the face of extensive data and research on what a ‘smart on crime’ stance looks like. Mind you, the Minister has been extensively quoted as saying that his party doesn’t get hung up on statistics. So, if you don’t use an evidence-based approach to creating policy what do you use? Ideology? Polling? Intuition? The crime rate is falling and has been for more than two decades now. That is a fact. Facts should matter.

So should simple mathematics.

Maybe Bill C10 is like new math. If you can explain the rationale behind the potential costs that’s good enough for an A. But I don’t think it works that way. In this case there needs to be some accountability for the final answer – the real costs of implementing Bill C10. Have I become like Margaret Wente bemoaning the fact we don’t drill kids on their times tables any more like we did 34 years ago? Is she wrong? I don’t think she is.

If Ms Wente is right then maybe that means I might be on to something as well, don’t you think? Of course, it might just be the wistfulness of old age. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this one.

Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.

Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Crime Prevention Council.

Housing needs in our community will only increase with Bill C10

From Prison to a Place Called Home: A Forum for Federally Sentenced Women – Remarks given by Alison Pedlar at the event on Wednesday January 25, 2012.

Why is a housing forum especially necessary at this time? Not only necessary, but critical in terms of the kind of society we may become or indeed are becoming, and in terms of the wellbeing of our community, and all the members of it, including all of us here today and those we represent, ranging from criminalized women, to service providers, to ordinary Canadians everywhere.

So, again, the question, why this forum? Some background may be helpful. In a nutshell, in 1990 the government of Canada accepted the recommendations contained in a report entitled, Creating Choices, Changing Lives: The Transformation of Women’s Corrections in Canada. This landmark report was welcomed in Canada and indeed was hailed in many other parts of the world, for its insight and relevant recommendations around women’s corrections. It ushered in a major shift in how we addressed women who had come into conflict with the law, in ways that recognized gender and conditions that lead women to prison. The Creating Choices philosophy was embraced and honoured in practice in women’s corrections. It was recognized as the right thing to do, and it did indeed encompass appropriate approaches with positive outcomes.

Fast forward to 2011-12, and the advent of Omnibus Bill C-10 (the “Safe Streets and Communities Act“) which as we know has been met with lots of debate from many different perspectives, including crime prevention organizations, people with extensive knowledge in criminal justice and law, parole, correctional investigators, some police groups and others. There is widespread fear that the adoption of the Safe Streets and Communities Act very likely will dramatically reshape the Canadian criminal justice system with some pretty devastating outcomes, particularly for the most vulnerable members of our society. Equally though, there have been dissenting views expressed by those who believe the government is doing the right thing in bringing in this legislation, and indeed is doing what it promised to do when elected with a majority last May.

So, at the end of the day, whatever one thinks about Bill C-10, it is pretty clear that we as a community have to deal with ensuring availability of housing as more and more women end up incarcerated for offenses that will increasingly, I fear, not be examined or dealt with at their root cause, namely poverty, abuse, and neglect.

And as more and more women end up in prisons that were never intended to house these sorts of numbers, so too more and more women will eventually, God willing, return to our communities. And this is the challenge we face now and for the indefinite future – we must find ways of supporting and accommodating women on release. Right now, as you have heard this morning, the options are not huge, in fact they are dreadfully limited. And if we want to help keep our communities safe, and part of that is helping criminalized women return to some kind of decent existence with decent and safe housing, then we have work to do.

Presumably, most if not all of us are here today because we recognize that housing is essential to a healthy environment that can foster reintegration. Housing on release ought to come in a range of shapes, forms, and sizes, such as halfway houses, such as rental apartments, such as private home placements, such as shared family homes and so on – but none of this can happen without appropriate resources and funding. Resources and funding ought to be a no-brainer when one considers that today to house a woman in prison for a year costs over $210,000 and the cost to taxpayers will inevitably increase with the anticipated increases in prison populations and staffing. I have a hunch, and in fact research likely indicates, that these dollars would go a long, long way in supporting and housing a woman in community. So it is astounding to realize that as recently as a year ago we failed to get a halfway house for women off the ground in this community because the funding available was so unrealistically low it was destined to have the initiative fail. Other options like private home placements as well as other halfway houses have had similar experiences with funding struggles, and indeed critical support and outreach services that support Aboriginal women have met insurmountable funding challenges.

However, today we have an exciting opportunity to revisit and explore possible alternatives and options that we as a community can work toward in the development of the sort of housing landscape that needs to be available for women coming out of prison. It’s time we got with the program, and as I suggested a moment ago, with the arrival of Bill C-10, we absolutely have no alternative but to move forward with housing and resource services for women who will ultimately move out of GVI into community. So that’s why we are here today.

In summary, then,

1. What we have heard this morning indicates to us that, with 75% of women in prison being mothers, we need to address the issues around reuniting mothers with their children;
2. There are women with nowhere to go, how do we end that situation?
3. Alternatives like halfway houses and Private Home Placement programs need to be funded realistically.
4. Do we need to do better around issues of addiction and mental health?
5. How do we ensure women have sufficient $$ to live a decent life?
6. How do we ensure women have access to resources and support services, including housing, that are essential aspects of healthy and safe community life?

Alison Pedlar is a Distinguished Professor Emerita, University of Waterloo. Prior to retirement she conducted extensive research with federally sentenced women examining reintegration. Some of her work can be accessed at Uncertain Futures: Women Leaving Prison and Re-Entering Community. She currently serves on the Citizens Advisory Committee of Grand Valley Institution for Women.

Listening to our ‘better angels’

An underlying premise of Bill C-10, the government’s anti-crime omnibus bill, is that our country has become less safe, therefore making it necessary for harsher consequences for those who violate the law. This premise is based more on perception than actual data. One need only look at the political discourse during elections to realize that if one tells a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. Even the title of the Bill, “The Safe Streets and Communities Act” gives an impression that our streets and communities aren’t safe, that our venturing out could be reminiscent of Little Red Riding Hood coming across the Wolf on a regular basis. Language is powerful and our choice of words like this (“safe streets and communities”) are meant to have an emotional trigger, much like the US has used in creating the “Patriot Act” and “Department of Homeland Security”. These words were no doubt chosen for a specific purpose, they are evocative and intentional. They allow citizens to embrace the actions emanating from the legislation because they will allegedly bring safer communities to those who uphold the laws of the nation while punishing the guilty, perhaps (and here’s the scary part) without questioning the rationale behind the new legislation.

Are our streets really that unsafe? Data available to all of us show that the rates of many crimes are in decline. So, it’s not that we have become less safe, it’s that we think we have. Why is that? Do we have a fixation for crime shows where murder and assault are rampant? Are there factors such as alienation from our neighbours or perceptions about our neighbourhoods that lead to some of us feeling unsafe? Does our fear or perhaps a past experience with crime drive us to want tougher laws and harsher punishments? Do we more easily depend upon government to solve these as opposed to community-based solutions such as those suggested by the local Crime Prevention Council? We could likely debate this for years before coming to consensus.

Into this discussion comes a controversial new book by Steven Pinker, “The Better Angels of our Nature” which posits that the world has actually grown less violent and therefore safer over the years. Pinker draws upon available data (much of it European) and charts the rise and fall of violence and torture over several centuries. Institutions like states and churches have evolved over this time moving away from ideas of retribution and torture used most often in the Crusades and the Inquisition but more recently in underdeveloped political systems. According to a recent review in Newsweek magazine by Robin Marantz Henig, Pinker posits that over the course of several hundred years the data shows that brutality and violence has decreased as society has moved from the hunter-gatherer mode, through the Enlightenment to the present time. In her review she states,

“Pinker looks for explanations for these advances within the individual. Human nature, he says, consists of a constant pull of good and evil. He identifies five “inner demons”-sadism, revenge, dominance, violence in pursuit of an ideology-that struggle with four “better angels”: self-control, empathy, morality and reason. Over the years, Pinker says, the forces of civilization have increasingly given the good in us the upper hand.”

It would seem that our task as a society, in our schools, churches, government is to increase the opportunity for these better angels to flourish.

This brings me back to my original question. Why then do we sometimes feel fearful of being victimized? Should I blame the media in influencing our perceptions of crime through highlighting crimes on the first page of the paper or at the beginning of a newscast (“if it bleeds, it leads”)? Does this sensationalization feed upon our fears of being a victim of crime and can keep us away from areas we perceive to be unsafe even though the data may not support such a belief? If anything, this fear gives governments the opportunity to advance an agenda that can be considered reactive or worse. Bill C-10 is a reflection of this agenda because it does not reflect the root causes of crime. It does not appear to consider the disparities in society or the role mental health, poverty, unemployment and addiction can play in crime. Rather than create opportunities for support for those struggling with these issues, it can be seen to punish and stigmatize them.

I recognize my views are not universally held. In fact, in some circles I would be in the distinct minority. The public discourse about the legislation is one of the benefits of our democracy. We are allowed to hold divergent views. But discussion of legislation like “The Safe Streets and Communities Act” and its impact on society in a structural, fiscal and moral sense can only gain ground when citizens make themselves aware of the legislation and its impact. When I bring up the topic in conversations with friends or family, very few know of the legislation. This isn’t a criticism. It’s the reality governments depend upon, particularly those with a majority. Again, not a criticism, just a reality. Only when we see the effects of overcrowded prisons and the concomitant expansion of correctional facilities due to mandatory minimum sentences and the resultant costs of this reflected in our taxes, will the questions begin. The first of which may be how we got ourselves into this mess.

So why does this matter? If we are willing to accept or even consider Pinker’s position, it means that we need to give legislation like Bill C-10 the “sober second thought” the Senate was created to provide. If crime and violence are not as prevalent as in the past, why is this Government creating legislation that is regressive and plays upon people’s fears and inner demons and not their better angels? What do you think? Let me know by sending me a response.

Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.

Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Crime Prevention Council.

Reading the newspaper is hard on my head

For awhile, this past weekend, I thought I was in a parallel universe. Something wasn’t making sense. I was reading an article in The Record about the drug treatment court that was launched several months ago to work with those whose addictions have led them to commit crimes. The article was about graduation day for the first group of offenders who began the alternative program back in February 2011. Dianne Wood from The Record wrote a ‘good news’ story celebrating not only the work of the offenders in turning their lives around, but also the work done by the Crown, police, social workers and various support agencies. Judge Colin Westman, who operates the court with crown prosecutors Kathleen Nolan and Lynette Fritzley had this to say, “This should be a statement to the justice system. There are ways other than punishment to help (people) turn their lives around. It’s more frequently done with love than punishment.” I had to read that more than once to ensure I hadn’t missed something.

As I read his words and other laudatory comments by the Crown attorneys I couldn’t help think about Bill C-10. This innovative drug court approach, according to Wood, receives no financial support from the federal government, unlike six other drug courts operating in Canada. Their approach, combining respect and support for the offender, while not excusing the crime nor forgoing punishment, seems to be in stark contrast to the “tough on crime” stance evident in the new Bill C-10 legislation. Their approach starts with the offender, putting the crime in the context of their lives, their struggles with addiction and their hopes and plans to turn things around. In doing so it has a better chance of matching the offender’s addiction issues with the support networks that will allow them the opportunity to get clean and stay clean. Will all succeed? No, according to one of the Crowns who helped develop the program. But, considering the cost of incarceration (approximately $75,000 annually) and the fact that it pulls people from families, homes, jobs and education, one wonders why this approach wouldn’t be the norm. Particularly at a time when we are seeing overcrowding at our local women’s prison and will no doubt see more of it as a result of C-10.

Now, there are some caveats. As Wood tells us, “the court won’t take offenders charged with violent crimes. It also won’t accept drug dealers who traffic for profit, although it will consider those who traffic to support their personal habit.” Offenders in the program are regularly monitored and must agree to live within certain conditions set by the court. Not everyone succeeds though there appears to be consensus that rehabilitation is less expensive than punishment and has a better chance of reaching the offender.

Given all of this, can you see why I am confused? With all of the negative press (and it sure seems to outweigh the positive) around C-10, why would the government want to continue with mandatory minimum sentences and other troubling features of their legislation? Is it strictly to honour their promise of getting tough on crime with legislation within the first 100 days of their mandate? Do they really think this will work?  From what I can see in the program described by Woods in her article, it appears the offenders appreciated the respect shown to them and the trust placed in them to make positive changes. What’s your experience been?

I’ve found there is much more incentive to take control of your life when people believe in your ability to do just that. Respect for the individual and his or her unique circumstance is the key. Several years ago I had the privilege to work with Fr. Mike Cundari when he was the principal of the former St. Jerome’s High School. His actions and words demonstrated respect for all. I marvelled at his ability to reach even the most difficult student. As I watched and learned I saw that respecting each person and ensuring their dignity remained intact in any disciplinary action was the key to his success. That and his enormous religious faith. But faith aside, his approach is reminiscent of that shown by those who initiated the drug treatment court. Hundreds, if not thousands of young men who attended this all-boys school in Kitchener will tell you this approach helped them be the best they could be. In the years to come, if the government doesn’t kill this innovative, smart on crime court, the same will no doubt be said of it.

Maybe it’s a good time to remember the words of Jack Layton:
Love is better than anger.
Hope is better than fear.
Optimism is better than despair.
So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic.
And we will change the world.

I’m interested in hearing your thoughts and comments on this. Please add them below.

Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.

Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Crime Prevention Council.

Hope is ‘in reach’

Just to be upfront, I am a small ‘l’ liberal on some issues and a small ‘c’ conservative with others, a parent, a middle child with a weakness for mystery novels, Clint Eastwood movies and lots of other descriptors that aren’t that unique. I may be in the minority in society but am in the majority of those who vote. None of this is really important but it may help explain why I am struggling with the issue of youth crime after reading a series in The Star called “The Kids of 311 Jarvis”, the site of Toronto’s Youth Court. It’s probably not too dissimilar from those in other major cities. It might not be that much different from the Youth Court in Waterloo Region. More on that later.

The Star series follows a number of cases through the Youth Court, a difficult step they contend, because of the secrecy behind the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This secrecy is necessary to protect young offenders from being labelled and gives them a second (or third) chance at making positive changes in their lives outside the scrutiny of the public. But, how easy is it to make these changes when saddled by poverty, low levels of educational achievement, substance abuse, mental health issues and the many other barriers they face?

The collective story of the youth in conflict with the law portrayed in the series is horrific and, while this doesn’t justify their crimes, it goes a long way to understanding them.  It also puts a face on their victims and the difficult journey to wholeness they face. Some readers might argue that “The Safe Streets and Communities Act” is a perfect remedy as it gives more voice to victims, adds more “aggravating” factors for judges to consider and restricts the ability of judges to consider attempts of some young people see the positive change it envisions.

In conversation with a youth who has been through our local Youth Court I learned things aren’t always what they seem. Dirty cells, being manacled to strangers for transfer to and from court, all freedoms taken away, subjected to strip searches, bad food, connections to families broken is the norm. Deprivations like these might seem justified, and in the minds of some, not go far enough in exacting punishment for the crime. Did this deter the young person from committing the crime? No.

Okay, would the imposition of the heavier sentences and further custodial restrictions act as a deterrent?  Isn’t general deterrence a goal of this ‘tough on crime’ approach? As it turns out from conversation with this youth, those tougher sentences wouldn’t have worked either.

From my experience, few of us take the time to analyze consequences before we act impulsively. Think about times in your own life when you made an unwise comment, bought another pair of pants (hey, they were on sale) or rushed through an orange light just on impulse. Maybe you avoided consequences, maybe you didn’t. No, what worked for this youth was the support of family, some new friends, courage and newfound wisdom borne from experience. That, and the help of a local program known as inREACH.

inREACH provides support to potential or current gang members and other youth who either have, or have to potential to, commit crime. inREACH provides support with employment, education, housing, addictions, probation orders or other barriers to success. The success of inREACH is linked to its collaborative partnerships with social agencies, police, crown, probation and parole services in addition to financial support from all levels of government. Programs like this can get to youth before they fall too far into the corrections net. Various provisions of the “Safe Streets and Communities Act” will make their task of diverting youth much more challenging.

All of which brings me to my dilemma. While my heart aches for the terrible lives these youth have to deal with, I also want the victims to know some sense of justice and closure. It’s not either-or, but both-and. I think this is where the Government’s legislation and approach has failed us. It doesn’t seek the balance a person like me wants to see in our elected government. but, if I’m right in surmising that people like me make up the majority of voters, we clearly differ on how we approach this issue come election time. Since we elected a party known to be fiscally and socially conservative, gave them a majority allowing them to reshape our country for the next several years, we shouldn’t be surprised changes to the Criminal Code and Long Gun Registry will come into effect. The added cost of increasing incarceration and the abolition of the registry (despite the fact that police use it regularly for their own safety) make one wonder how fiscally conservative the current Government truly is. No argument about their social conservatism. That is clear from their actions. Adding millions of dollars to federal and provincial budgets through the after-effects of “The Safe Streets and Communities Act”, on the cusp of another recession, makes one wonder what their personal checking accounts must look like each month. I thought conservatives liked smaller budgets and less government intervention in society. In the words of Republican presidential candidate Governor Rick Perry… “oops”.

Whether we count ourselves as liberal or conservative in our values and voting patterns we still need to face the fact that ‘the kids of 311 Jarvis’ will always be with us unless we work to eradicate the fundamental causes of crime. Ultimately that will create fewer victims, lower the costs associated with crime and build a more harmonious society. Canada was founded on the notion of “peace, order and good government”. How we get there will be debated for years but it’s a good starting point for a conversation.

Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.

Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Crime Prevention Council.

The “Complex Issue” Series: FASD and Crime, Part 2

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder and the Safe Streets and Communities Act – Part Two
While The Safe Streets and Communities Act may tie together disparate pieces of legislation the government could not pass when it was in the minority, it does little to proactively support prevention through increased  “front end” support for mental health services, choosing instead to “back end” this by increased incarceration. It’s interesting that parallels exist between education systems and the criminal justice system, and not just because many students see school as a form of jail. No, where they are similar is in the belief, backed by years of research, that the more proactive services put into place, at the earliest possible time, the greater the benefit. The Toronto Star has reported on a study known as “Early Years Study 3” authored by Dr. Fraser Mustard, Kerry McQuaig and Margaret Norrie McCain where the case is made for starting school at the age of two. Why? Because the sooner support is provided, the more successful we are at addressing social and mental health barriers. In the case of Bill C-10, if amendments could be made that would increase government investment in providing support early on, not only with those with FASD, but with other mental health concerns, the costs of having to address these issues later, when it is much more difficult and costlier, will be reduced.

In a recent Juristat Article on Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2010, it is reported that these types of very serious crimes have declined substantially. If the intent of “The Safe Streets and Communities Act” is to reduce crimes of this nature, its work is already done. And done, by and large, by recognizing the complexity of motive and opportunity, as well as mitigating factors that Bill C-10 ignores. Few people would argue that there are some individuals who need to be incarcerated. Murderers, serial killers, terrorists, those who kill police while in commission of a crime, those who kill corrections officers while incarcerated, pedophiles whose crime and behaviours put children at continued risk easily come to mind. These are the easy ones and we could likely argue about other crimes for which jail time might not be the best consequence. What we don’t see reflected much, if at all, in the proposed legislation is an appreciation of the difference between the actus reas (the criminal act) versus mens rea (premeditation) and how mental illness, poverty, addiction and, more specifically, FASD impair decision making prior to the crime itself. The unintended consequence is that, without preventative measures that address the root causes of crime, we won’t be able to differentiate and  provide appropriate interventions and consequences such that recidivism isn’t guaranteed as soon as the person is released. And, by and large, they will be released having learned lessons in prison that don’t include the ability to make a smarter decision next time the opportunity for crime presents itself.

My background in education causes me to come at this problem from an alternative frame of reference. For example, teachers use ‘differentiated education’ because they recognize that not all students learn in the same way. Some students are able to understand abstractions while others learn better through ‘real world’ applications. Some can see the picture in their minds whereas others have to see a model to understand the concept. In other words, education has to start where the student is at. Increased graduation rates have come about because schools  have recognized that one approach won’t work for everyone.  Should this any different from criminal justice? Can a ‘one size fits all’ model like that of Bill C-10 work? While crime victims may want retribution, do they really want the criminal to come out more damaged, more able to do harm to others? I doubt it. We shouldn’t hope for institutions to solve problems created at the human level. How can we be ‘smart on crime’ if we dismiss what common sense (as well as reams of research) tells us?

Where does this leave us? We have some obvious decisions to make. We need to continue to educate young people about the risks of alcohol use, particularly during pregnancy. There is no safe amount of alcohol use during pregnancy. There just isn’t. We could call this initiative RIPE (Reduce Impaired Pregnancy Everywhere) if we were terrible at marketing.  But, we do need to develop a higher awareness among educators (and all who work with youth) about FASD and create more timely interventions and support. Collaborative partnerships between school boards, police, agencies, Crowns and  Corrections could help identify the extent of the issue and determine effective interventions. Additional qualification courses at Faculties of Education as well as Police Foundation courses at community colleges could help inform and instruct their students about the issues. Advocacy and awareness about FASD with governments at all levels is necessary for financial support for collaboration, research and programs.

We can’t ignore what we know about the relationship between mental health and criminal behaviour. We have to work to see that people in need get the help they deserve. It is not only more economical in the long run, it appeals to our “better angels”. Lastly, and here’s the kicker… when Mark Kelly and Gabby Giffords were interviewed recently by Diane Sawyer on 20/20 about the shooting in Arizona, Mr. Kelly said this about the accused: “If he received the help he needed, this probably wouldn’t have happened”.

What more needs be said?

Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.

Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Crime Prevention Council.

The “Complex Issue” Series: FASD and Crime

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder and the Safe Streets and Communities Act – Part One
The Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council  is an organization with links to several community agencies interested in creating a safer community. Its mandate is to develop and encourage a new approach, a ‘smart’ approach to crime prevention and to create more awareness in the community about issues related to crime prevention. The proposed “Safe Streets and Communities Act” has generated much discussion among Council members. As a guest blogger here on Smart on Crime, I’ve had the opportunity to attend various meetings and events to learn about the impending legislation and its consequences for our communities.

One of the major disadvantages of the proposed Act is its failure to look at mitigating factors for crime, as opposed to only ‘aggravating’ factors. Mitigating factors can include any number of issues, from addiction, poverty, lack of educational achievement, poor impulse control or a range of mental illnesses that act as barriers for a person fully appreciating the nature of their behaviour and how it contributes to impinging on the rights of others. We can see this in several ways but, for example, we are now becoming more aware of the number of people with FASD (Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder) who either commit crime or are victims of it. On behalf of the Crime Prevention Council, I attended a recent forum on FASD presented by KidsAbility’s Centre of Excellence   The audience was primarily educators and social work professionals (you can see highlights of the forum by going to their website) though there were others of us in the audience who were curious about possible connections between those with the disorder and the justice system.

FASD is an umbrella term and can include other disorders on the spectrum such as Alcohol Related Neuro-Developmental Disorder (ARDN), Alcohol Related Behavioural Disorder (ARBD), partial FAS (pFAS) and others. FASD is permanent brain damage related directly to alcohol use during pregnancy and is characterized in those with no concept of right vs wrong, no sense of consequences, impulsivity, poor judgment, difficulties in school (often suspended, expelled or early school leavers), socially inappropriate behaviours and trouble with the law. We know it is caused by alcohol use during pregnancy, particularly in the early stages. We also know that no amount of alcohol use during pregnancy is safe. None.

FASD is difficult to diagnose and, while it is believed that many in the corrections system in Canada have the disorder, diagnosed cases are underrepresented in the prison population. Full FASD comes with certain physical characteristics so it may be a little easier to spot. However, there are those with pFAS whose facial features do not give any external clue that they may be operating somewhere on the spectrum. Because of this our initial reaction to them and their behaviours is the same as we might have towards those who are not affected by FASD. This is not unknown in the education system as well.

As a secondary school principal I often dealt with students who were repeatedly brought to my attention for being late (no concept of time), inappropriate behaviour (no sense of time, place and personal space), theft and swearing, failure to follow class rules and so on. Almost like the movie “Groundhog Day”, I could see these students every day for the same behaviours because their neural brain damage was such that they would repeat the same behaviours over and over again. There was very little or no remorse or new learning. Our simple solution, borne from legal requirements as well as a lack of alternatives, would be repeat suspensions. On the face of it they just seemed non-compliant.  Upon reflection, I think that many of these students likely had partial FAS. They bore none of the physical characteristics ascribed to those with full FAS. Not only that, because there is a high degree of co-morbidity with FAS many students on the spectrum may also have had Conduct Disorder (CD), Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD), Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and so on. FASD would not be the first thought I would have in seeing one of these students.

At the KidsAbility Forum I learned it should have been more on my radar than it was. It’s interesting that some students on the spectrum actually have high IQ’s but can’t process information correctly. More simply, what goes in and is then processed, does not match what should come out as a product. This only adds to the frustration they feel in regular classrooms. They have real problems with transitioning from one situation to another because they have such a hard time with change.  School staff have had little to no training in working with students with FASD and most boards don’t have the number of Social Workers and Psychologists needed to support interventions for these kids. That’s just the financial reality. Plus, because their behaviours could be any one of a menu of “alphabet” disorders, it’s hard to get a good handle on them. There’s a caution here too:  we don’t want to fall victim to assuming students demonstrating these behaviours are all on the FA spectrum. That’s reminiscent of the old saying that “If your only tool is a hammer, then every problem is a nail”. Educators need more support and training in working with these kids to help them navigate a pretty tough system and to differentiate students presenting with learning issues so that we can, in turn, differentiate the learning process for them.

Now, put on your crime prevention hat and look at the population I’ve just described. Impulsivity, lack of control, no appreciation of consequences, lacking remorse etc.  Do they not seem like those who populate our court system? A chart created and adapted by Mary Cunningham, one of the speakers at the KidsAbility Forum, links typical FASD behaviours with possible implications for those caught in the justice system. Given Bill C-10 and its failure to recognize the role mental health plays in the commission of a crime, what can this population expect except incarceration? Though Crowns, Defence, judges and correction officers do their best to recommend consideration and treatment, without a solid diagnosis and available interventions, these men and women will be released only to fall back into the corrections net. Because of the neural impairment connected to FASD, there is a greater likelihood people on the spectrum can be more easily led into crime, can be more easily induced to make confessions to crimes they didn’t commit  and be inaccurate in making a witness statement. This only adds to their victimization. With the harsher sentencing under the proposed legislation and a blind eye to mitigating circumstances, we will have a problem on our hands. We will have compounded a mental health problem with a legal one.

There is a fear that  Bill C-10 reduces the current flexibility in making sentencing decisions that take into account the neural damage FASD creates.  For those looking to learn more about the relationship between FASD and the justice system I’d suggest reading a study by Dr. Julianne Conry, “Interrelationships among Mental Health, Substance Abuse and Cognition in Youth with FASD in the Justice System” as it provides an instructive look at this very serious issue.

Stay tuned for Part Two, tomorrow.

Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.

Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Crime Prevention Council.