JustResearch Edition no. 9
CURRENT AND UPCOMING RESEARCH FROM AROUND GOVERNMENT
LAW COMMISSION OF CANADA
What is a Crime?
In March 2003, the Law Commission released its discussion paper on "What is a Crime?" In modern society, there are a variety of mechanisms and techniques to suggest, invite, or compel appropriate behaviour and, conversely, to discourage, deter, and punish behaviour considered detrimental. Why do we criminalize certain behaviours and not others? What are the legal, social, and cultural factors that influence the decision to criminalize or not criminalize unwanted behaviours? Have we come to rely too heavily on law to deal with unwanted behaviours? What does criminal law provide that is not available through other means or alternatives? The purpose of this discussion document is to encourage Canadians to discuss and debate these and other related questions. The Commission will explore opportunities to consult with Canadians on this important issue, as well as seek opportunities for research that furthers its work in this area.
Age Distinctions
The Law Commission of Canada is also preparing a discussion paper on age distinctions and relationships between the generations. The project focuses on two generations: older adults and children and youth. The paper will examine the age distinctions that affect these groups and evaluate the impact of laws and the administration of laws on the relationships between those generations. Age is often used as a distinguishing characteristic in Canadian laws and policies. Many benefits are awarded and obligations or restrictions imposed on the basis of age. Some of the distinctions are contained in the laws while others arise when the laws are put into practice. Examples would include access to certain income support programs, eligibility to vote, mandatory retirement, access to job training, employment protections, and cutbacks to health care. The Law Commission seeks a methodological approach that would examine distinctions based on age, whether benefits or burdens, and determine whether age is relevant to the objectives, whether other criteria would be more relevant, and how best to achieve the equality and dignity of all generations while promoting intergenerational relationships and respecting differences.
Work and Economic Security
The Commission has also undertaken a project on work and economic security that examines the impact of the law on the ability of Canadians to achieve economic security through work. The law plays a large role in determining what kinds of work are recognized, valued, and rewarded and, equally, what kinds are devalued, ignored, or prohibited. It plays a role in clarifying and providing a means to enforce the rights and obligations of workers and those for whom they work and in the redistribution of income.
On what basis does the law recognize and reward certain types of work or categories of workers, but not others? Are the distinctions fair and are they being made on the basis of legitimate policy goals? These and other related questions are currently being explored in two separate research projects. The first uses the lens of self-employment as a means of looking at how the law uses employment status to determine the personal scope of labour protection and social benefits. The second examines the ways in which the legal regulation of activities related to the sex and skin trades impacts upon the work done in those fields.
Legal Pluralism
The Commission is also interested in supporting research on institutions that reflect and support legal pluralism in Canada. What steps are necessary for fostering respect for different legal traditions? Are separate or new institutions needed that would support legal traditions such as those of Canada's First Nations peoples? How would we ensure that these institutions have a viable and authoritative place within the Canadian legal system? These questions and others are examples of the issues explored at the conference on governance held in April 2003 and hosted by the Assembly of First Nations and the Law Commission of Canada.
More information about these and other projects and events is available on the Commission's Website (www.lcc.gc.ca).
CANADIAN CENTRE FOR JUSTICE STATISTICS, STATISTICS CANADA
"National Trends in Intimate Partner Homicides, 1974-2000" (Juristat,Vol. 22, No. 5)
Spousal homicide rates for both women and men have declined between 1974 and 2000. During this time period, the homicide rate for women decreased by 62%, from 16.5 to 6.3 women per million couples, while the homicide rate for men dropped by more than half (55%), from 4.4 to 2.0 men per million couples. Homicide rates among other intimate partners also declined over this time period.
"Crime Statistics in Canada, 2001" (Juristat, Vol. 22, No. 6)
After having decreased for the previous nine years, Canada's crime rate increased slightly (+1%) in 2001. About 55,000 more Criminal Code incidents were reported by police in 2001 as compared to 2000. The crime rate was about the same level as in 1979.
"Homicide in Canada, 2001" (Juristat, Vol. 22, No. 7)
There were 554 homicides in Canada in 2001, 8 more than the previous year. The national homicide rate remained relatively stable for the third consecutive year at 1.78 homicides per 100,000 population. This rate has gradually been decreasing since the mid-1970s.
"Youth Custody and Community Services in Canada, 2000-01" (Juristat,Vol. 22, No. 8)
The most common offences resulting in sentenced custody (open and secure) were related to property offences, accounting for 39% of admissions. Violent offences accounted for 27% and offences under the Young Offenders Act for 14%. In comparison, property offences accounted for 48% of probation admissions, while violent offences accounted for 32% of these admissions.
"Pilot Analysis of Recidivism Among Convicted Youth and Youth Adults, 1999-2000" (Juristat, Vol. 22, No. 9)
In 1999-2000, 60% of the nearly 57,000 convicted offenders between 18 and 25 years of age had at least one previous conviction, either in adult criminal court or youth court. Among recidivists, 28% had one prior conviction and 72% had multiple prior convictions.
"Adult Correctional Services in Canada, 2000-01" (Juristat,Vol. 22, No. 10)
Over the year 2000-01, a total of 235,000 adults were admitted to custody in the provincial/territorial and federal system, an increase of 3% from the previous year. Admissions to remand accounted for half of provincial/territorial custodial admissions, sentenced custody admissions for 36% and temporary detention (e.g., immigration hold) accounted for 11% of provincial/territorial custodial admissions. Admissions to federal custody accounted for 3% of total admissions.
"Motor Vehicle Theft in Canada, 2001" (Juristat, Vol. 23, No. 1)
The rate of motor vehicle thefts increased in 2001 (+5%) for the first time in five years and now stands 10% higher than a decade ago.
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
An Examination of Healing Lodges for Federal Offenders in Canada Shelley Trevethan, Nicole Crutcher, and Christopher J. Rastin, Correctional Service Canada
The disproportionate involvement of Aboriginal persons in the criminal justice system has been recognized for some time. This paper examines one of the initiatives in place by Correctional Service Canada (CSC) to address Aboriginal over-representation-the establishment of healing lodges for offenders. Section 81 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act allows Aboriginal communities to provide correctional services. Healing lodges are meant to aid Aboriginal offenders in their successful reintegration by using traditional healing methods.
The purpose of the report is to examine federal healing lodges currently in operation in Canada. This includes a physical description of healing lodges, a profile of those who have resided in healing lodges, and an examination of outcome. It also includes an examination of how staff in federal correctional institutions, staff in healing lodges, and residents view the healing lodge experience. Finally, the report discusses issues facing healing lodges.
Highlights:
- There is great variation among healing lodges: they differ in location, size, design, operation and programming. Facilities that were built specifically as section 81 healing lodges are more focused on Aboriginal traditions but do not maintain the structured approach of a CSC facility.
- From the time that the first healing lodge opened in 1995 until October 2001, 530 federal offenders have resided at healing lodges (excluding those on conditional release).
- Residents of healing lodges are not the "easiest cases." At intake, they tend to be higher risk and need and have lower reintegration potential than a comparison group of Aboriginal offenders in minimum security who were not transferred.
- Upon release, larger proportions of healing lodge residents than non-lodge offenders were re-admitted for new offences (19% versus 13%).
- Healing lodge residents reported overall satisfaction with their experience at the healing lodge. Some of the positive effects include: helping them better understand themselves; furthering their healing journey; exposure to Aboriginal culture and traditions; staff to whom they can relate and with whom they can communicate; more extensive access to Elders; and, help in reintegrating into the community.
- According to respondents, issues facing healing lodges include: lack of resources (strain on resources affects the way the lodge operates, in terms of buildings, staff, training, programming, technical infrastructure and community interaction); efficiency of transfer process; problems with the relationship between healing lodges and federal institutions (lack of communication between healing lodges and federal institutions has led to questions on the part of federal staff regarding the lodges' ability to manage offenders and a lack of understanding of each other's roles and responsibilities); and, lack of community involvement.
First Nations, Métis, Inuit and Non-Aboriginal Federal Offenders: A Comparative Profile
John-Patrick Moore, Correctional Service Canada
Research suggests that the over-representation of First Nations, Métis and Inuit offenders can be understood through distinct profile characteristics. This project was based upon a one-day profile of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit offenders currently incarcerated in federal correctional facilities.
First Nations offenders in federal corrections can be characterized by previous involvement in the criminal justice system and violent criminal behaviour. Larger proportions of First Nations than non-Aboriginal offenders have received multiple past convictions (72% versus 62% have five or more previous adult convictions) and have been incarcerated for homicide offences (28% versus 24%) and serious assault (39% versus 26%). The seriousness of the offences for which First Nations offenders are incarcerated is reflected in the level of security under which they are classified. Significantly larger proportions of First Nations offenders are recommended for maximum levels of security at intake than Métis, Inuit, or non-Aboriginal offenders. First Nations offenders also present a multitude of needs for correctional administrators at the time of admission. Large proportions are rated as having "some" or "considerable" need in the areas of personal/emotional orientation (96%), substance abuse (94%), employment (70%), associates/social interaction (65%), and marital/family background (60%).
Similar to First Nations offenders, Métis offenders have had lengthy criminal experience during childhood and previously as adults. However, the offences for which Métis are currently incarcerated are more varied than with other offenders. Significantly greater proportions are incarcerated for robbery (40%) than any of the other groups (First Nations, 29%; Inuit, 8%; non-Aboriginal, 35%). Métis offenders are also more likely to be convicted of a drug offence (17%) than First Nations and Inuit offenders (11% and 6%, respectively). Larger proportions of Métis than non-Aboriginal offenders are incarcerated for break and enter (38% versus 31%). Métis offenders also have unique needs for institutional programming. Large proportions have "some" or "considerable" need in the areas of personal/emotional orientation (95%), substance abuse (91%), employment (71%) and associates/social interaction (70%).
The profile of Inuit offenders can best be reflected in their offending behaviour. The crimes for which Inuit are incarcerated are frequently of a sexual nature. Almost two-thirds (62%) are currently incarcerated for sex offences, which is substantially larger than First Nations (22%), Métis (16%), and non-Aboriginal (17%) offenders. The severity of these crimes is reflected in their assessed level of risk. While Aboriginal offenders, in general, are rated as greater risk to re-offend than non-Aboriginal offenders, larger proportions of Inuit offenders are classified as high risk to re-offend (85%) at intake than First Nations (73%), Métis, (68%), and non-Aboriginal (57%) offenders. Findings also highlight that Inuit offenders have greater need overall for intervention (89%) than other groups (First Nations, 78%; Métis, 73%; non-Aboriginal, 62%). Large proportions were rated as having "some" or "considerable" need in the areas of personal/emotional orientation (99%), substance abuse (92%) and marital/family (73%) background.
The Needs of Métis Offenders in Federal Correctional Facilities in British Columbia
Shelley Trevethan, John-Patrick Moore, Correctional Service Canada, and Matt Thorpe, Karma and Associates
Similar to First Nations offenders, Métis offenders have had lengthy criminal experience during childhood and previously as adults. However, the offences for which Métis are currently incarcerated are more varied than with other offenders. Significantly greater proportions are incarcerated for robbery (40%) than any of the other groups (First Nations, 29%; Inuit, 8%; non-Aboriginal, 35%). Métis offenders are also more likely to be convicted of a drug offence (17%)
Because of their over-representation within the correctional system and differences between First Nations and Métis offenders, Métis offenders may require different interventions. It is necessary to examine what programs and services are in place, and what Métis offenders require for successful reintegration. In partnership with Métis National Council and Métis Provincial Council of British Columbia, the Research Branch examined the needs of Métis offenders in British Columbia (31 JustResearch Issue No. 9 32 /pi/rs/index.html). Interviews were conducted with 64 Métis offenders incarcerated in federal correctional facilities in British Columbia and 17 family members. Focus groups were also conducted with staff in 8 federal correctional facilities.
Highlights:
- Although Métis offenders have similar demographic and criminal profiles as First Nations offenders, differences in other characteristics (e.g., urban home, culture) indicate a need for different intervention styles for Métis.
- Métis offenders have their diverse criminogenic needs addressed by correctional programming. For instance, 80% of Métis offenders rated as having "some" or "considerable" need in substance abuse participated in substance abuse programs. Although correctional programs target the criminogenic needs of Métis offenders, offenders may not respond fully to the programs unless they are given in an appropriate cultural context and in a way that is meaningful to their lives.
- Of the Métis offenders interviewed, 57% reported having different needs than non- Aboriginal offenders. However, only 27% reported different needs from First Nations offenders. The differences are not in the area of criminogenic needs, but best refer to responsivity needs, in particular cultural/spiritual aspects.
- It was noted that, in order to increase responsivity, programs need to be facilitated by Métis staff and provide a Métis-specific cultural context.
- At the time of release, respondents indicated the need for similar types of services as First Nations and non-Aboriginal offenders (e.g., employment, housing, community support). However, they noted that these services need to be provided by Métis organizations, who can relate to Métis offenders.
- The needs of family members of Métis offenders are similar to those of family members of all offenders. However, to make the services most effective, providing them in the appropriate cultural setting is important.
- Based on focus groups with federal institutional staff, it appears that staff have little knowledge of Métis culture or training in the area. Information sessions for staff on Métis culture could aid in a better understanding of differences between Métis and First Nations offenders.
A Profile of Federal Offenders Designated as Dangerous Offenders or Serving Long-Term Supervision Orders
Shelley Trevethan, Nicole Crutcher, and John-Patrick Moore, Correctional Service Canada
In 1997, the government passed Bill C-55, amending the Criminal Code of Canada with regards to dangerous offenders (DOs). The majority of the amendments regarding DOs were procedurally based; however, a new section was added that allowed judges to impose long-term supervision orders (LTSO) for a period of up to 10 years after the custodial sentence was served. This research project examined offenders designated as DOs and LTSOs. In addition, a comparison of the profiles of dangerous offenders classified prior to Bill C-55 and those classified under the new provisions in Bill C-55 was undertaken.
Since January 1994, there have been a total of 274 offenders admitted to federal custody under the DO or LTSO designation. Of these, 179 were DOs and 95 were sentenced to an LTSO. The number of DOs designated each year has remained relatively constant; however, the number of LTSOs has increased each year since the enactment. The Quebec and Prairie regions have larger proportions of LTSOs than DOs, while the Ontario and Pacific regions have larger proportions of DOs than LTSOs. The Atlantic region had similar proportions of DOs and LTSOs. As expected, DOs had a greater number of previous adult convictions than LTSOs and were considered higher risk to re-offend. Furthermore, DOs were classified as maximum security more often than LTSOs.
DOs and LTSOs did not differ substantially in the type of offence for which they were incarcerated. The majority of both groups had a current and previous sexual offence. Unlike the general inmate population, where only a small percentage of offenders victimize children, elderly, or handicapped, large proportions of DOs and LTSOs had victimized children. In comparison to LTSOs, DOs had significantly more female youth and female adult victims. As expected, DOs caused more injury, both physically and psychologically to their victims and were more likely to use a weapon or threaten than LTSOs.
When examining the needs of these offenders, almost all DOs and LTSOs were rated as having higher overall need. However, with respect to the separate need domains, DOs were rated as having higher need in the areas of employment, associates/social interaction, substance abuse, community functioning, and attitude.
The examination of DOs prior to, and following enactment of, the legislation revealed expected results. There were very few significant differences between the pre- and post-groups. The major difference indicated that the pre-DO group had, on the whole, greater needs than the post-DO group.
For more information or to obtain a copy of reports or publications, contact the Research Information Centre of Correctional Service Canada by telephone at (613) 995-3975, by fax at (613) 941-8477 or by email at reslib@magi.com. You can also access research publications via the Correctional Service of Canada website at
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca.
- Date modified: