Posts Tagged ‘prevention’
Posted on: January 19th, 2012 by Smart on Crime
Thank you to everyone for reading, sharing and commenting on our previous 5 posts outlining the position of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council with respect to the Omnibus Crime Bill (C-10), the Safe Streets and Communities Act. One of the most common questions we received was, “So… what happens now? Has the Bill fully passed? How soon could this all start happening?”
People lamented not paying more attention in high school Civics class!
Here’s what we know.
The Safe Streets and Communities Act was passed in the House of Commons on December 5, 2011. Bill C-10 passed first and second reading in the Senate by December 16, 2011. It was then referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, where it rests until Members return to the Senate on January 31, 2012. It is expected to remain with this Senate committee for several weeks in early February and then return to the Senate for a third and final vote expected around mid-February. It is expected to pass. After that, it becomes legal reality.
We’ve also been following some of the speeches and discussion regarding Bill C-10, every word of which can be found online via the parliamentary website.
If you want to read what has been said by individual Members of Parliament about Bill C-10 in the House of Commons, the open data website, openparliament.ca, provides a quick source, along with a full record of the votes. We also took a look at the presentations made by witnesses (delegations) before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to gauge the level of support or opposition for Bill C-10.
Every justice based, crime prevention-oriented organization and community across Canada, whether in support or opposition to Bill C-10, will be waiting to see how the next steps play out. Bill C-10 could change the face of the Canadian justice system as we know it and we will all be affected, directly or indirectly, in some way.
So, now we wait….
Special thanks to Olivia Boyington (University of Waterloo) and Kayla Follet (Wilfrid Laurier University, Lyle S. Hallman School of Social Work) for preparing the summary of presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Posted on: January 12th, 2012 by Smart on Crime
Of course! Who wouldn’t support a greater voice for victims? Who wouldn’t agree that internet sexual exploitation of children must be stopped? Who wouldn’t want to send the message that one crime is one crime too many?
WRCPC wishes for and works for safer streets and communities and we do so alongside many other municipalities. But we are deeply troubled by the wholesale nature of the proposed legislation whereby Canadians need to accept the bad with the good. The government has a mandate to invest in the prevention of crime and to bring justice. C-10 as an omnibus bill simply cannot accomplish that.
We therefore ask that the Senate of Canada do due diligence and engage in sober second thought and review C-‐10 bill by bill, step by step as the only reasonable review to deal with the complexity of the legislation at hand. We also ask that prevention be taken seriously during this review. Prevention has worked, continues to work and stands a better chance of delivering safe streets and communities than C-10 in its current form can.
We went to hear from you. What do you think about the potential for Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act?
This is the last section of the position paper from the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council. Earlier sections of the position paper are available here on the Smart on Crime blog:
Posted on: January 11th, 2012 by Smart on Crime
It costs anywhere from $70,000 to over $130,000 annually to house one person in a correctional facility. Many of these inmates have a history of low educational and employment achievements, learning disabilities, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder issues, significant mental health and addiction challenges or other mitigating factors that may have contributed to their actions. These conditions do not excuse their actions but it helps us to understand them with a view to prevention. While in the past these considerations were part of the application of the law for the purpose of rehabilitation (a key correctional mandate), providing only for aggravating circumstances in mandatory minimum sentences decontextualizes crime. This approach will without doubt create a sizeable group of prisoners with little to no chance of succeeding in society upon their release. Mandatory minimum sentences make the offender, his or her context, personality, upbringing, intellect, morality or addiction irrelevant. They fail to take into account ongoing treatment needs for addictions or mental health issues or developmental delays. Minimum sentences also adversely affect the family the perpetrator leaves behind, particularly if there are children in continued need of support. This increases the risks for children whose parents are incarcerated, extends the cycle of victimization and extends the root conditions that lead to crime to the next generation. Simply stated, the human and financial costs of pro-social measures will always be substantially lower than costs of increased incarceration. Downloading a vast share of these costs to provincial governments, that are already financially stressed, will significantly hinder our collective ability to fund and advance rehabilitation efforts.
This is section four of the Bill C-10 position released by the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council (WRCPC). Earlier sections of the position paper are available here on the Smart on Crime blog:
Tomorrow we will post the fifth and final section of the position paper.
Posted on: January 10th, 2012 by Smart on Crime
This is section three of the Bill C-10 position released by the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council (WRCPC). Earlier sections of the position paper are available here on the Smart on Crime blog:
Over the next week we will post one position paper section each day for discussion and dialogue. Our position paper was sent to all Members of the Senate as well as our local Members of Parliament in December 2011.
The Government of Canada is attempting to solve a problem that is already on the decline and this decline is in no small part due to the efforts of many individuals, groups and local communities across the country. Canada has seen a largely consistent decline in the rates of crime. Police-reported crime rates, which measure the overall volume of crime, also continued to decline in 2010 reaching the lowest level since 1973. With falling crime rates across the country C-‐10 makes a promise to develop greater safety in streets and communities by relying on the law alone. Inevitably this promise will be broken, likely leading to a call for even tougher measures in the future. Community engagement is critical to ensure that crime prevention remains the responsibility of all Canadians: parents, teachers, community leaders and many others. It is smart to continue to find ways to increase that engagement beyond the formal system of justice. The law is too blunt an instrument to deal with the complexity of public safety and security home by home, street by street, and community by community. All citizens need to be engaged in all facets of the prevention and justice continuum. It has taken Canadians well over two decades to see such increases in community engagement for crime prevention. It was challenging to get beyond the passivity of leaving it to the government of the day. C-‐10 is going “back to the future” who meaningfully engage in keeping their communities safe.
Similar laws are dismissed in other countries as expensive, ineffective and overly reliant on government because they ignored the capacities for pro-social measures and viable alternative approaches such as restorative justice. Measures that address the roots of crime are not only cost effective but they provide the significant savings in human suffering. Police services across the country have long recognized this potential and engage with it. Communities cannot accomplish their task by means of charity. A strategic investment at all orders of government is needed.
What do you think? Does C-10 diminish the community involvement in prevention that is needed to keep Canada safe?
You can download the full position paper here and be sure to visit the Smart on Crime blog each day over the next week to participate in the discussion on the remaining sections of the position paper.
Posted on: January 9th, 2012 by Smart on Crime
This is section two of the Bill C-10 position released by the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council (WRCPC). You can read section one here and the introduction here. Over the next week we will post one position paper section each day for discussion and dialogue. Our position paper was sent to all Members of the Senate as well as our local Members of Parliament in December 2011.
C-10, once enacted, will lead to higher incarceration of disadvantaged populations such as people growing up and living in poverty, those with addiction and mental health issues, and Aboriginal peoples. These populations are at higher risk of being affected by multiple root causes of crime and are already overrepresented in the current justice system. C-10 tips the balance between retribution/restitution and prevention such that this situation is likely to worsen.
As far back as in 1993 the federal government appointed a commission to investigate how to deal with the rising costs of crime. The recommendation of the commission chaired by Dr. Bob Horner (MP) was that “all levels of government are responsible for crime and they must work together to prevent its occurrence”. Since that time many municipalities have worked tirelessly across the country to augment the efforts of federal and provincial governments with crime prevention through social development. They have often done so on severely limited resources and yet show significant positive outcomes.
Increases in incarceration will lead to increases in spending and those inevitably will impact the federal and provincial governments’ capacities to advance new and support existing prevention strategies. Prevention may well be left to local communities and municipalities who are already struggling to meet multiple quality of life issues.
What do you think? Does C-10 signal the end of the Canadian Government’s commitment to crime prevention through social development?
You can download the full position paper here and be sure to visit the Smart on Crime blog each day over the next week to participate in the discussion on the remaining sections of the position paper.
Posted on: January 6th, 2012 by Smart on Crime
This is section one of the Bill C-10 position released by the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council (WRCPC). Over the next week we will post one position paper section each day for discussion and dialogue. Our position paper was sent to all Members of the Senate as well as our local Members of Parliament in December 2011.
The reactions to C-10, including those presented to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST), have been nothing short of overwhelming. Based on a review of these reactions and a vibrant community dialogue within our community we respectfully posed the following questions about C-10 as part of our position paper:
Does C-10 lead us away from good common sense?
By failing to look at crime as an issue that is broader than the crime itself, C-10 narrows the spectrum of thinking and action to mostly moral considerations which are inevitably volatile to subjective judgments. The Canadian public is intelligent! Canadian laws should match our collective ability to understand the complexities of problems. And crime is a complex problem. Taxpayers should not be asked to pay for a strategy that defies good common sense. C-10 is based on little, if any, evidence with regards to tangible benefits, least of all benefits for victims of crime that deserve our compassion and commitment to change.
Nobody knows this better than our neighbors to the South. The United States has more than 30 years of experience pursuing a similar strategy that increased incarceration rates 600% over this period (with an equivalent increase in cost). By now 25% percent of the world’s prison population is housed in the United States.
Will Canada be on a course to match or beat that record with no substantial benefit to communities?
The U.S. has the highest documented rate of incarceration in the Western world, and yet 60% of Americans feel less safe in their own neighborhoods than they did a year ago. Canadians on the other hand report feeling safer than they did one year ago. The imbalance between intent and outcome in the US situation comes at a staggering cost of $68 billion every year, not including the loss in productivity. And yet, for all the money spent, there has been no reduction in crime that can be attributed to the higher rates in incarceration.
Nor is the recidivism rate lower. In fact, mandatory minimum sentences reduce prisoners’ incentives for good behaviour, including participation in counseling for substance abuse, domestic violence issues, etc. — and this in turn increases our overall vulnerabilities to crime upon their release. The Bureau of U.S. Justice Statistics states that half of the prisoners released in any one year in the US are expected to be back in prison within three years.
Additionally, three-quarters of new admissions to state prisons are for non-violent crimes, with the single greatest cause of prison population growth in the U.S. attributable to people incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses. WRCPC submitted its concerns about mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences as proposed in C-15 to the Senate in July 2009.
Many Americans are urging Canadians not to repeat their mistakes, including Republican governors and state legislators in such states as Texas, South Carolina, and Ohio which are now repealing mandatory minimum sentences, increasing community supervision, and funding drug treatment because it is seen as a better mechanism for improving public safety and reducing taxpayers’ costs.
If passed, C-10 will take Canadian justice policies in a direction that defies good common sense not only based on research but also based on experiences in the US and elsewhere.
Legislation has to be examined on its merits not sentiments.
Regrettably, C-10 puts us on a course of more crime, less justice, less safety, less protection for the victims, and less protection for society overall at a greater cost than we currently have or are likely to be able to afford in the future.
What do you think? Does Bill C-10 lead us away from good common sense?
You can download the full position paper here and be sure to visit the Smart on Crime blog each day over the next week to participate in the discussion on the remaining sections of the position paper.
Posted on: January 5th, 2012 by Smart on Crime
Bill C-10. The Safe Streets and Communities Act. Proposed crime legislation that has prompted discussion, dialogue and deliberation around the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council (WRCPC) table and within the community like never before. Based on input from meetings, phone calls, emails, media scans, and social media, WRCPC presents a position paper that outlines our review of and reactions to Bill C-10, our understanding of the evidence base, and our recommendations.
Over the next 5 days, we will post daily, a section of the position paper. Since Bill C10 was introduced in the House of Commons in September 2011, WRCPC members, staff and the community have been engaged in a process to better understand the legislation itself, the related evidence base, and the potential impacts of the proposed changes. And we want to hear your feedback about what we’ve said.
By way of a summary we recommend:
- That the Omnibus Bill C-10 be disaggregated and reviewed bill by bill because of the vastly divergent nature of the proposed legislation
- That all mandatory minimum sentences be evaluated in light of evidence and expenses. Given the current economic times and the potential for cost to be downloaded, directly or indirectly, to already financially stretched provincial and local governments, a common sense approach to any allocation of limited resources is needed
- That the Government of Canada be asked to balance any investment in correction and enforcement with strategic investments in prevention, and that specifically the Government of Canada implement a National Crime Reduction Board with the mandate to advance social development efforts that have a proven track record in preventing and reducing crime, victimization and fear of crime. The role of this Crime Reduction Board would be to augment changes in legislation, enforcement and corrections with prevention
How did we get here?
The Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council (WRCPC) has worked in partnership with many community organizations, all orders of government, grassroots groups and individuals to prevent crime, victimization and fear of crime since its inception in 1993. Efforts to enhance public safety and security are highly valued by us. Our mandate is to support and engage in activities of social and community development that can positively impact the roots of crime.
In this role the Council closely monitors the impact of legislation and policies at all orders of government on the safety and security of people living, working and growing up in our community. To accomplish this complex task we pay close attention to research, conduct independent and community-based research, and combine this knowledge with the wisdom and experiences of multiple disciplines in the design of evidence-based prevention and intervention strategies.
The position paper on Bill C-10 must be seen in this light.
WRCPC’s position paper was sent to all Members of the Senate as well as our local Members of Parliament in December 2011.
You can download the full position paper here and be sure to visit the Smart on Crime blog each day over the next week to participate in the discussion – we absolutely want to hear what you have to say.
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 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.
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.
