Posted on: February 23rd, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
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.
Posted on: February 14th, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
The Interrupters, has been getting a LOT of press lately. That’s not why I’m writing about it here as the ‘Smart Link of the Day’. I’m writing about this film because it showcases the absolutely innovative approach of Chicago’s Ceasefire program to curb gun related shootings and killings in that city. Since being released in August 2011, The Interrupters has been screened in almost 200 locations across the United States, Canada, the UK and Australia.
This film follows three Ceasefire “violence interrupters“, Ameena Matthews, Cobe Williams and Edi Bocanegra, as they go about their daily work of literally, and physically breaking the cycle of violence in their neighbourhoods. These are some of the bravest community workers I have ever seen. You can catch the film preview below or watch the full feature film that aired on CBC’s The Passionate Eye.
When traditional approaches no longer seemed to work, Ceasefire founder, Gary Slutkin, took a public health perspective when designing the program. As an epidemiologist, he came to believe that violence mimics the spread of infectious diseases and so, could be ‘treated’ in a similar way; “go after the most infected, and stop the infection at its source“. And it appears to be working. Early research from the Department of Justice on the effectiveness of Chicago’s Ceasefire program found the program to be effective with significant and moderate to large impacts.
What does that really mean with respect to decreased shootings and killings? Let the data speak for itself.
41-73% drops in shootings and killings in CeaseFire zones.
16- 35% drop in shootings directly attributable to CeaseFire.
100% reductions in retaliation murders in 5 of 8 neighbourhoods.
I don’t know about you, but I would say this seriously fits the bill as a ‘smart on crime’ approach. It is rooted in evidence based practice. It is built on partnership, collaboration and cooperation. Its social change orientation makes an investment in actions that create sustainable change to root causes. It adapts and responds to the needs and trends of the social community. It is widely and broadly supported by all corners of the community, from the grassroots to the highest levels of decision making.
Smart on crime, indeed. Now go watch the film, then share it with a friend or a group of youth.
Posted on: February 2nd, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
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.
Posted on: January 24th, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
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.
Posted on: December 21st, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Last year, I wrote about Judge Jimmie Edwards and the creative, down-to-earth work he does to reach out and catch the most vulnerable youth falling through the system in St. Louis, Missouri. He started his own school, run by his youth court, and gives youth another chance to get life back on track, and earn a high school diploma.
Judge Edwards subscribes to the ‘smart on crime’ philosophy of crime prevention that we love and know so well here at the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council: intervene early, work at the root causes, and work to increase the protective factors. In this case, Judge Edwards is able to intervene early when a youth first sets foot in his court. He is able to identify underlying issues that have brought this youth to where they are now (family dysfunction, drug and/or alcohol use, lack of supervision, low school achievement or dropout… the list goes on). It would be easy for Judge Edwards to hand out a sentence of jail time or community service – but he sees a full 27% – 30% return rate of youth back to his court. It got him to thinking about how they could do things differently in St. Louis that would reduce & prevent crime among youth, and at the same time, improve longer term opportunities for success.
Education became Judge Edwards’ focus. The Innovation Concept Academy is the only school of its kind in the United States. After opening its doors in 2009, it has recently seen it’s first graduation ceremony for eleven students. Two of those students have gone on to college. That’s eleven students who might not have made it otherwise.
By Judge Edwards own measure, he would call the school successful.
“If we save one, I’m hopeful. If we save two, it’s a blessing”.
Posted on: December 14th, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
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.
Posted on: December 7th, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
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.
Posted on: November 29th, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Who could turn down an invitation to an event called “Cookies and Crime Prevention”…… ? Community events often use the lure of food and edible goodies to draw out attendees. I fell for that trap when I was asked to be a guest speaker for the Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association (VPNA) AGM last week! That’s really only half the truth….
In fact, I’ve been involved with members of the VPNA for some time now in my role as Community Engagement Coordinator with the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council. I could give you a long paragraph about the work we’ve been doing with residents in the neighbourhood. But that’s not nearly as interesting as hearing the story as told by of the neighbours herself.
Aimee makes the point so perfectly in her story. We all have a role to play in creating stronger neighbourhoods. Every little part makes a difference and together we are stronger. We. Can. Make. Change.
And sharing cookies doesn’t hurt either.
Additional stories about Cookies and Crime Prevention from The Record:
Posted on: November 24th, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
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.
Posted on: November 23rd, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
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.
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.
Into this discussion comes a controversial new book by Steven Pinker, 