Earlier this week, in the tablet edition of the Globe and
Mail there were two separate stories on Canada's attempt to change (or in one
case not change) our laws and practices in terms of our correctional system.
While the Globe did not connect the two stories, I think they are very closely
connected. Both stories should encourage Canadians to once again visit the larger
debate as to the purpose of incarceration.
One story was about the Canadian government's rules on solitary
confinement in federal prisons being constitutionally
challenged by a second group of concerned citizens (Globe
& Mail). The second story was about the
government's plan to propose legislation that would ensure that criminals who
are found guilty of first degree murder can be incarcerated for their entire
lives with no possibility of parole (Globe
& Mail).
While the issue of if we should, or how long we should,
isolate prisoners has been revitalized since the tragic and unnecessary death
of Ashley Smith and the resultant Ontario coroner's inquest, and the more
recent death of 24-year-old Edward Snowshoe, it is not a new debate. Solitary
confinement was, at least in North America originally created in the early
1800s to allow prisoners time for solitude, so that they could reflect, read
the Bible and repent of their devious ways (NPT; Mother
Jones). From the very beginning of this experiment it was noted that
instead of people changing in a positive way, their mental health became worse
(NPT;
Scientific
American). More recently there have been numerous studies all suggesting that depriving
individuals from contact with other individuals will negatively affect their
mental health and therefore their behaviour (Haney;
Hresko; Rhodes). It
is very clear that solitary confinement does nothing to either rehabilitate the
individual or to prepare them to live in society (Scientific American). Its only value is to punish people in a way that
cruel and ineffective. It would be perhaps more useful to look at reasons why
solitary confinement is now being used and what would be more an effective alternative
to managing that behaviour.
This focus on prisons
being a place of long term punishment is not new. In the past few years the Conservative
government has established mandatory sentencing, the new "Truth in
Sentencing" law and allowed that both sentences (for multiply murders) and
parole ineligibility can be now be applied consecutively.
The fact that the Canadian Government has
refused to deal with the larger systemic problems of our correctionalsystem
confirms that for the Conservatives, prison is about harsh punishment not
rehabilitation.
All of these policies were designed to lengthen the amount
of time prisoners spend in prison. Clearly these laws pander to the
Conservative's base who are of the belief that crime is rampant and that the only way to deal with crime is to incarcerate
people who deviate from the norm in the harshest manner, for the longest period
of time. I agree.
Or rather I would agree
if there was one shred of proof that (1) Canada's crime rate is spiralling out
of control or (2) that harsher punishment stops people from committing crime.
Neither of those assumptions are true. Less than a year ago it was reported that Canada's
crime rate is at its lowest point in forty years both in terms of numbers of
offenses and the severity of those offenses (Star). Secondly, while there are indications that if a
potential criminal is certain that he is likely to get caught (e.g. there are
more police with radar guns on the highway during a long weekend), they are
less likely to commit an offense (less likely to speed), the actual severity of
the consequence is not relevant (Chen,Sapario;
Wright)
when they are deciding to commit the crime.
The Conservatives are quite
right. There is a problem within the Canadian justice system. Incarcerating
people for longer times will, once again, only deal with the symptoms of those
problems and ignore the real issues.
What else is new?
No comments:
Post a Comment