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.