What would our communities look like if we consistently prioritized spending on education over spending on prisons? There are lessons to be learned from our neighbours to the south where several US states are looking long and hard at reversing the trend of prison budgets trumping education.
Infographic from: http://www.publicadministration.net/prison-vs-princeton/
As someone lucky enough to be a mere observer of the criminal justice system and not a participant, my curiosity was peaked when I heard a young offender (let’s call him Henry) speak about his experiences and the wisdom gained as a result. Henry and I met recently to give me a close-up view of the perspective of someone who has been affected by the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), an act that has been widely praised for the balance it strikes between compassion and consequence. Much of the rationale given by the Minister of Justice in regards to the changes to the Act, as part of Bill C-10, is in regards to what he perceives to be “out of control youth”. Now, in my time as a school principal I probably met many of the young people who, for a period of time, might fall into this category. But, isn’t anyone who commits a crime temporarily out of control?
Everyone has a different story so legislation like Bill C-10 that severely reduces the discretion judges can use knowing the story behind the youth and the crime is disturbing. Judges need this discretion because every person coming before the bench is unique and, what works for some won’t work for all. Some young offenders never come into contact with the courts or police ever again because they have benefitted from the alternative measures and diversion programs designed to do just that. Whereas others, like Henry, aren’t helped by them, not because they aren’t good programs but participation in them requires a commitment not every offender is able to give because they aren’t ready for it. Human nature is incredibly complex, requiring a nuanced approach that C-10 does not seem to offer.
Henry allowed me to hear his story one afternoon recently. In order to protect his identity I have changed some of the facts in his story. Henry was an inmate in the correctional system more than once. He has seen it up close. Not a pretty place, though it can bring structure and support to some who might need it. There are some guards who are helpful and hopeful and others who are disrespectful of inmates and abuse their authority through the arbitrary loss of points inmates can use for privileges. It’s not an easy place to maintain one’s dignity, particularly with overcrowding (which is already seen in many jails and prisons and will only worsen under C-10). Being brought to court for remands and made to wait hours in cuffs and shackles for the appearance and then to wait again for the return to jail was frustrating. Made to sit on a concrete bench for hours doesn’t help one maintain a sense of dignity. For Henry court was a frustrating experience because it seemed no one was interested in his side of the story as his lawyer did most of the interaction with the judge and court officials.
The adolescent brain is still in a stage of maturation and has not fully developed the capability to reason thoughtfully. Many young people don’t take the time to reason out the impulse to act out, whether it results in a theft, a fight, a threat or a robbery. Steven Pinker, in his book “The Better Angels of our Nature” says “The arc of crime in adolescence is the outcome of these inner forces [sensation-seeking and competitiveness] pushing and pulling in different directions (p.600-601). Young people, if Henry is an exemplar, do not always take the time to reason out the deterrence factors of the penalties associated with laws. It’s not necessarily in their biological nature during adolescence. It is evolving and not fully-formed.
As part of the program at inREACH, Henry has learned about brain development and the role it has played in his discernment process. Through the lessons learned there he has come to personify what Pinker says…”In the long run, self-control gains the upper hand when it is fortified by experience which teaches adolescents that thrill-seeking and competitiveness have costs and that self-control has rewards” (p 601).
Not only has he learned valuable lessons himself but he hopes others can too. He especially hopes police will take every opportunity to be people and not just their roles. He hopes that more can be gained by listening and offering respect than a heavy hand or preconceptions about youth. In his view, some officers think fear is better than respect. Thankfully that has not been the attitude of every officer or correctional staff member. He also learned that family is more important than friends, maybe making truth of the old saying that “blood is thicker than water”. Henry’s family has been there for him, at each court appearance and with regular visits when he was incarcerated. He has come to a deeper appreciation of them.
Henry’s is just one story and I wish I could tell it more fully but I don’t want to take the chance of anyone identifying him because of this article. There are many stories of youth who haven’t had the support of family, school or programs like inREACH. Henry has taken the support he’s been given and made himself a better person. He hopes to use his experiences to help others as a career and will likely be a positive influence in the lives of many others. He is resilient. My worry is for those for whom the harsher strictures of C-10 will turn the benefits of the YCJA into something destructive.
A wise friend once told me that when she meets with an inmate, she’ll try to picture them as a five year old.
More than any other document, inmates are often keen to share their autobiographies with me. Often, these are painstakingly written as part of a family violence program in a prison.
The mail arrives. Another bulky package. A dozen stamps on the front. It’s from someone who goes by a number.
What became of that little boy? How did he get off-track? What was missing – love, care, affirmation – when he was a child? What was present – violence, abuse, shame – that should not have been?
Another person wants me to know their story. To actually know them. To actually see them. Not in the way that everyone else does.
When we do something wrong, we want to tell a story about how it happened. When others do, we want to remove the behaviour from its context.
I could probably tell many of the stories without ever reading them. Neither comedy, nor sufficient drama, they are tragedies.
A boy beaten with electrical wire. Kindergarten-age children tied to trees in thunderstorms. Not that uncommon or even the most outrageous of what is written.
No one notices.
Actually, that’s wrong, society does notice: when they break the law as adults, we give them what they deserve.
Judah Oudshoorn is a Professor at Conestoga College in the Community and Criminal Justice Degree program, a restorative justice mediator in the Canadian federal prison system and a PhD student at the University of Toronto. More importantly, he likes chocolate chip cookies, books and lawnmowers. Most importantly, he is a proud dad and partner. Judah can be contacted at joudshoorn@conestogac.on.ca
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.
From Prison to a Place Called Home: A Forum for Federally Sentenced Women – Remarks given by Alison Pedlar at the event on Wednesday January 25, 2012.
Why is a housing forum especially necessary at this time? Not only necessary, but critical in terms of the kind of society we may become or indeed are becoming, and in terms of the wellbeing of our community, and all the members of it, including all of us here today and those we represent, ranging from criminalized women, to service providers, to ordinary Canadians everywhere.
So, again, the question, why this forum? Some background may be helpful. In a nutshell, in 1990 the government of Canada accepted the recommendations contained in a report entitled, Creating Choices, Changing Lives: The Transformation of Women’s Corrections in Canada. This landmark report was welcomed in Canada and indeed was hailed in many other parts of the world, for its insight and relevant recommendations around women’s corrections. It ushered in a major shift in how we addressed women who had come into conflict with the law, in ways that recognized gender and conditions that lead women to prison. The Creating Choices philosophy was embraced and honoured in practice in women’s corrections. It was recognized as the right thing to do, and it did indeed encompass appropriate approaches with positive outcomes.
Fast forward to 2011-12, and the advent of Omnibus Bill C-10 (the “Safe Streets and Communities Act“) which as we know has been met with lots of debate from many different perspectives, including crime prevention organizations, people with extensive knowledge in criminal justice and law, parole, correctional investigators, some police groups and others. There is widespread fear that the adoption of the Safe Streets and Communities Act very likely will dramatically reshape the Canadian criminal justice system with some pretty devastating outcomes, particularly for the most vulnerable members of our society. Equally though, there have been dissenting views expressed by those who believe the government is doing the right thing in bringing in this legislation, and indeed is doing what it promised to do when elected with a majority last May.
So, at the end of the day, whatever one thinks about Bill C-10, it is pretty clear that we as a community have to deal with ensuring availability of housing as more and more women end up incarcerated for offenses that will increasingly, I fear, not be examined or dealt with at their root cause, namely poverty, abuse, and neglect.
And as more and more women end up in prisons that were never intended to house these sorts of numbers, so too more and more women will eventually, God willing, return to our communities. And this is the challenge we face now and for the indefinite future – we must find ways of supporting and accommodating women on release. Right now, as you have heard this morning, the options are not huge, in fact they are dreadfully limited. And if we want to help keep our communities safe, and part of that is helping criminalized women return to some kind of decent existence with decent and safe housing, then we have work to do.
Presumably, most if not all of us are here today because we recognize that housing is essential to a healthy environment that can foster reintegration. Housing on release ought to come in a range of shapes, forms, and sizes, such as halfway houses, such as rental apartments, such as private home placements, such as shared family homes and so on – but none of this can happen without appropriate resources and funding. Resources and funding ought to be a no-brainer when one considers that today to house a woman in prison for a year costs over $210,000 and the cost to taxpayers will inevitably increase with the anticipated increases in prison populations and staffing. I have a hunch, and in fact research likely indicates, that these dollars would go a long, long way in supporting and housing a woman in community. So it is astounding to realize that as recently as a year ago we failed to get a halfway house for women off the ground in this community because the funding available was so unrealistically low it was destined to have the initiative fail. Other options like private home placements as well as other halfway houses have had similar experiences with funding struggles, and indeed critical support and outreach services that support Aboriginal women have met insurmountable funding challenges.
However, today we have an exciting opportunity to revisit and explore possible alternatives and options that we as a community can work toward in the development of the sort of housing landscape that needs to be available for women coming out of prison. It’s time we got with the program, and as I suggested a moment ago, with the arrival of Bill C-10, we absolutely have no alternative but to move forward with housing and resource services for women who will ultimately move out of GVI into community. So that’s why we are here today.
In summary, then,
Alison Pedlar is a Distinguished Professor Emerita, University of Waterloo. Prior to retirement she conducted extensive research with federally sentenced women examining reintegration. Some of her work can be accessed at Uncertain Futures: Women Leaving Prison and Re-Entering Community. She currently serves on the Citizens Advisory Committee of Grand Valley Institution for Women.
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.
Everybody loves an infographic! They are so helpful in making a point that words on paper just can’t do. As various delegations and experts appeared before the House of Commons during the debate on the omnibus crime bill, we were reminded of this great infographic from The Church Council on Justice & Corrections.
It gives one pause for thought.
To read more from the CCJC on the omnibus bill, find their CCJC Bulletin and an earlier press advisory about the costs of prison expansion called for in the omnibus bill.
Fulfilling an election promise, the Government of Canada recently introduced the “Safe Streets and Communities Act” or Bill C-10. If passed, Bill C-10 would significantly amend the Canadian Criminal Code and related legislation. C-10 is an omnibus bill that includes nine pieces of proposed legislation covering changes from mandatory minimum sentences to tougher penalties for selected crimes. The government has promised to pass this Bill in the first 100 days of Parliament.
What’s the rush?
The government is well aware a 30-year obsession with “law and order” in the United States has been politically popular but has actually failed to reduce crime. Facts are facts and the failure of the US “tough on crime” approach (among others) is well documented. Unfortunately, Canadians are debating crime more than the weather these days, blissfully unaware of how much they will pay to implement a law whose major components have been proven failures in other lands.
From a crime prevention perspective such public interest in building safer communities is always a positive development. Everyone has a role to play and we can’t and shouldn’t leave the work up to any one order of government and its institutions. It’s a teachable moment.
That’s why the time frame of 100 days to discuss a major overhaul of the Canadian justice system is completely inadequate. Of course, everyone wants “safe streets and communities”, but in a classic American move this Bill lumps in everything from sexual abuse of children to possession of marijuana. If you disagree with the pot provision God help you because then you must also be “soft’ on sexual abuse of kids. The populist needs of a government should not stop Canadians from assessing how each specific piece of legislation tossed into this soup will affect the balance between prevention, rehabilitation, restitution and denunciation.
Some of the measures (such as Serious Time for Serious Crime Bill and the Abolition of Early Parole Act) will increase the number of inmates in an already over-crowded prison system from 13,000 to more than 17,000. Such huge increases come with huge costs. Adding more than 4,000 more inmates will mean spending an additional $1.8 billion over five years. And that is the just the federal cost. The provinces already pay to incarcerate more than 20,000 inmates at the current status. During a time of vast fiscal restraint such needless pressure on taxpayers to solve a problem that doesn’t exist is excessive and irresponsible.
In the end, the main question must be whether C-10 will in fact accomplish what the government says it will do: increase public safety. Unfortunately the answer is a resounding NO. Substantial research shows that “tough on crime” strategies have neither reduced crime nor assisted victims. And all of this is happening at a time when crime has been at its lowest in decades across the country.
So, let’s recap: during one of the lowest crime rates in history and in the midst of a crippling recession where people are losing jobs in droves the federal government is implementing a scheme that has failed elsewhere at a cost that will more than double Canada’s current public safety budgets.
This is not OK, and Canadians deserve a full and proper debate on each and every component of the omnibus bill.
Author: John Shewchuk, Chair, Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
With a zang and a zing
The bells of parliament did ring
To signal the new season
Of parliamentary reason
The message was clear
To all who could hear
“Changes in law are coming this fall
Our omnibus is big, our orders are tall
We’ll do what we said, we have the right and the votes,
The cost and the outcomes…. We’ll get to that footnote”
“We’ve got plans for these thugs, these thugs and their drugs
We’ve got a majority – no time for soft hugs
If you can’t do the time
Then don’t do the crime
Please, don’t waste our citizens’ dime
With all your prime time crime”
It’s a puzzle, yes, a puzzle, said the people
Who gathered in places with town halls & tall steeples
And online in real time, they talked about crime
About tougher and smarter, ways to spend dimes
The people said, I don’t understand, you see
Why the big rush for an omnibus accompli?
The people said, I find it so curious
These facts and these claims, all looking so spurious
Curious why…
A fortune is spent for prison invention
When just scraps are left in the name of prevention
Curious that…
There is not time for ‘wasting’ on research and cost
Really? The moment must be seized before the moment is lost?
Curious why…
Evidence, history, stats experts, unheeded
All of whom know that a smart way is needed
Curious why…
We can’t learn from the change that now sweeps the US
Where 30 years of ‘law and order’ caused such a mess
With crime rates at the lowest in history
The toughness of Bill C-10, well, it’s a bit of a mystery
The people, they called and they wrote
They said, hey, we don’t need this omniboat
No omniboat, no omnibus
And we’re prepared to cause a big fuss
They said to the Bill, this is just NOT for us
Where is the prevention in your big omnibus?
We won’t stand by to see budgets flagrantly tossed
As a tough brand of justice is royally embossed
Let’s get smart, smart on crime, said the people
Who all got busy in places with town halls and tall steeples
Working smarter on crime
Seems more worth our time
And easier on the citizens’ dime
So, let’s build a movement, a movement for change
Let’s get creative, a few things to rearrange
We’ve got plans too, for the way things get done
This community is smarter, second to none
Here we go, watch us go
Collaborate
Evaluate
Anticipate
Animate
Invigorate
Validate
Captivate
Authenticate
Participate
Negotiate
Coordinate
Concentrate
Elaborate
Generate
Recreate
Advocate
Integrate
Cultivate
Accentuate
The smarter way to go
On the heels of the July 21st Statistics Canada report on crime statistics for 2010, several media outlets ran editorials over the past few days asking a similar question: If crime has been on a downward trend since 1973, why is the ‘tough of crime’ agenda so popular? These editorials appeared as music to our ‘smart on crime’ ears; because asking tough questions about evidence based practice is the smart thing to do!
Here’s a collection of the coast-to-coast reflections:
Have you seen other editorials and articles on this in your city or town newspaper? Send us the link and we will add it to the list above.
