Much of the research conducted focused on Aboriginal offenders; there is less known about the overrepresentation of Aboriginal victims. Whereas Levan (2003) looked at victim issues in the territories, Chartrand and McKay (2006) undertook research on the criminal victimization of First Nation, Métis and Inuit peoples. Through their extensive review of the literature, Chartrand and McKay found that criminal victimization of Aboriginal people was found to be disproportionately higher than the criminal victimization of the general Canadian population. Personal violence experienced by Aboriginal women, youth, and people with disabilities was highlighted by the authors as particularly problematic. Indeed, the authors indicated that victimization rates of Aboriginal women in some communities were reported as high as 80%. Although the rates of victimization are quite high, Chartrand and McKay noted indications that victimization of women, children, and men often goes underreported in Aboriginal communities.
A plethora of Canadian empirical research focuses on experiences related to adult Aboriginal overrepresentation at various stages in the criminal justice process; there is less empirical knowledge surrounding the experiences Aboriginal youth in custody. Bittle et al. (2002), and later, Latimer and Foss (2004) (through a snapshot, one day survey) sought to fill this gap by analyzing incarceration rates of Aboriginal youths in custody.
In 2002, Bittle et al. found that the typical Aboriginal youth in (open, secure or remanded) custody on the day of the survey was a male between the ages of 16 and 17 who had been convicted of a property offence in an urban area. This study also includes more detailed data by jurisdiction, as well as information surrounding where Aboriginal youth were living prior to their current admission, and where youth planned to relocate upon release.
Latimer and Foss (2004) included a comparison group consisting of non-Aboriginal youth in custody to offer much needed perspective by juxtaposing the situation of Aboriginal youths in custody with that of non-Aboriginal youths in custody. The authors reported substantial reductions of incarceration rates of Aboriginal youth since 2000. Despite these reductions, Aboriginal youth experience a higher rate of incarceration than their non-Aboriginal counterparts. Indeed, the authors found the incarceration rate of Aboriginal youth was 64.5 per 10,000 population while the incarceration rate for non-Aboriginal youth was 8.2 per 10,000 population: Aboriginal youth were almost eight times more likely to be in custody compared to non-Aboriginal youths, despite only representing 7% of the total population of youth in Canada.
Latimer and Foss posited that a complex of interacting variables likely contribute to the gross overrepresentation of Aboriginal youth in custody. In particular, the authors indicated that high rates of poverty, substance abuse, and victimization can lead to a breakdown of the family as well as serious offending at a young age. Moreover, they noted that discrimination toward Aboriginal youth in the criminal justice system may contribute to overrepresentation of Aboriginal youth in custody.
The 2004 Latimer and Foss study also included ‘Sharing Circles’ – a forum which permitted Aboriginal youth to speak to their experiences prior to entering custody and the criminal justice system (for their current offence) in a manner akin to a focus group. During the Sharing Circles, topics were introduced by an Elder; youth were passed a ‘talking stone’ and given the opportunity to share their opinion on particular subjects and their experiences. Group participants discussed issues such as substance abuse, organized crime, and racism. Moreover, respondents conveyed their opinions surrounding effective correctional programming for Aboriginal youth in custody. Sharing Circle members indicated Aboriginal youth in custody could benefit from Aboriginal cultural and spiritual programming and one-on-one mentoring.
The Department of Justice commissioned three studies relating to legal aid services in the Northwest Territories (Focus Consultants, 2002), Nunavut (IER and Dennis Glen Patterson, 2002), and Yukon (Focus Consultants, 2002). These studies were later summarized collectively (de Jong, 2003). The reports employed both qualitative and quantitative techniques, utilizing interviews, focus groups, document and file reviews, as well as a variety of quantitative sources to provide a picture of legal service provisions in Northern Canada.
De Jong notes contextual differences between the territories that affect the legal aid service and delivery in the North; for example, the mandate of the Yukon Legal Services Society is different from those of the Legal Services Board(LSB) of NWT and the Nunavut Legal Services Board (NSLB). There are also a number of similarities between the three territories, such as the circuit court structure, distances between communities, high crime rates, and a lack of local resources.
The author indicated geography tends to impact service provision inasmuch as geography is related to difficulty accessing communities. Culture and language differently impact the pattern and quality of service delivery as well as the demand for service in different communities.
The NWT, NU, and the YT have both resident and circuit courts. The circuit court structure was found to be characterized by heavy dockets, compressed schedules, time pressures, and – particularly in the NWT and Nunavut – a difficulty with respect to accessing clients for case preparation. Respondents in Nunavut indicated that circuit courts cause substantial delay in service provision. Moreover, respondents in Nunavut were concerned with the discontinuity of counsel that arises from the use of circuit courts.
Respondents in all three jurisdictions reported insufficient representation for family and civil law issues. In addition, respondents in all three jurisdictions were concerned with the level of representation prior to first court appearances – this was especially a concern in the NWT and YT. Quality of telephone representation was also identified as an issue in all three jurisdictions.
De Jong’s report also speaks to the role of the Court Work Program, Justices of the Peace, as well as drivers of cost, public legal education and information, and proposed solutions to unmet needs.
In December 1998, a project designed to improve legal aid services to Aboriginal people was launched in Kent County, New Brunswick (Currie, 2000). A large number of adjournments of first appearances required by Aboriginal accused persons was observed in this County. Anecdotal evidence suggested the large number of adjournments was due, in part, to a language barrier between Aboriginal accused persons and non-Aboriginal lawyers. The duty counsel project was initiated to curb this situation; an Aboriginal lawyer who spoke Mi’Kmaq, the language of the region, was hired to provide duty counsel services to Aboriginal people at the Richibucto provincial court. In the first year of the duty counsel project adjournments for Aboriginal accused persons were significantly reduced. Notably, the decrease in adjournments did not lead to an increase in guilty pleas; instead, the program resulted in an increase of not guilty pleas. Currie (2000) concluded the duty counsel project was successful in the first year of its operation.
Centralized safe firearm storage programs provide a venue for community members to voluntarily store their firearms in a centralized facility when they are not required for hunting. Cormier’s (1998) exploratory study reviews central firearm storage programs in four Aboriginal communities (God’s Lake First Nation, God’s River First Nation, Mathias Colomb Cree Nation, and Shamattawa First Nation) in Manitoba. This exploratory research involved telephone and on-site interviews with program administrators as well as community members. Three rationales for centralized firearm storage were put forth by program administrators: firstly, that firearms should not be readily available where their use may be inappropriate or threatening; secondly, that firearms should not be available to those persons who are not skilled or knowledgeable in the safe handling of firearms, such as children; and finally, that safe firearm storage prevents firearm theft. The author found that central firearm storage can be achieved with little inconvenience to community members, and can substantially benefit the community; for example, in God’s Lake the main benefit of the storage program was a reduction in the prevalence of firearm usage during the commission of offences. Cormier identified four elements of successful safe firearm facilities: that there is community will to use the program, that the public is aware of the program, that there is public confidence in the program and that the program is convenient.
Based on the work of Parriag and Clement (2002), and Landau (2002) we were able to map out what types of crime were common in Nunavut at the time of its inception, and what correctional facilities were available. From Giff (2000) we have learned what facilitates the success of community-based justice programs in Nunavut. Bittle et al. (2002) and Latimer and Foss (2004) empirically confirmed that Aboriginal youths are overrepresented in custody; indeed, the latter study demonstrated that Aboriginal youths are almost eight times more likely than their non-Aboriginal counterparts to be in custody. Similarly, Chartrand and McKay (2006) found Aboriginal victimization rates to be disproportionately high compared to the general population, and highlighted personal violence experienced by Aboriginal women, youth, and people with disabilities as especially problematic. Currie (2000) concluded the duty counsel project in New Brunswick was successful in the first year of its operation. Cormier (1998) revealed that safe firearm storage can be of substantial benefit and can be employed with relatively little inconvenience to community members. Clark (2004) found the Nunavut Community Justice Program to be effective at providing an alternative to the formal justice system, although concerns and recommendations to improve the program are noted.