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.