Last week a group of denominations in this country which includes the United Church of Canada made a public statement opposing the federal government's "tough on crime" initiative. Even though statistics tell us that crime is on the decline in Canada, and polls indicate that law abiding Canadians aren't keen to incarcerate any more people than necessary, Prime Minister Harper seems intent on building more prisons and filling them up. The prisons themselves will cost billions and each person who spends a year in a federal institution costs us, the taxpayers, $100,000.
The church coalition called The Church Council on Justice and Corrections ccjc.ca wants the "nasties" in our society to stay behind bars, the murderers and perpetrators of violent and highly destructive crimes. It encourages alternatives including restorative justice for the lesser stuff. I'm with the coalition. When I worked in chaplaincy in Kingston Pen there were lots of people who deserved to be there, and needed to be there. I also saw that we were locking up people in a school to teach them how to be better criminals rather than requiring them to make restitution to individuals and society.
Where are you on this one? Would you sign a petition asking the government to reconsider? Should the United Church just mind its business?
12 comments:
I have worked with Justice Circles with the John Howard society. On the whole they have a great success rate. I have visited many jails and find them to be an awful solution to help the people within them. I do think the church should be involved but I also think society should be involved, not just the churches.
There are certainly two main camps in this debate, although a blend of this opposing points of view meeting somewhere in the middle is probably the solution to the problem.
Incarceration makes sense for the reprehensible - for those who are incapable of rehabiliation and present an unabating menace to society. Those who can be rehabilitated should be given the opportunity. Restorative justice (a policy presently embraced in our school board) is one such program point that can lead to reintegration if used correctly.
Not to get overtly political, but the government's "tough on crime/lock 'em up" stance is typically a popular tune with the ruling party's constituency.
My fear is that as we lose more and more beds/treatment options for those suffering from mental illness, the prison system is where they will end up. It might make better sense to invest in mental health, as a way of dealing with overcrowded prisons. Proactive vs. reactive.
I have little to no personal
experience with the legal system, and I'd like to keep it that way.
There are people who are beyond help i.e. Paul Bernardo, Russel Williams, Manson, Dalmer, etc.
There are violent, anti social, warped individuals who need to be removed from society. The question is where do you draw the line? The white collar criminal who duped the poor old widow out of her retirement fund will not be detered by a little community service. He may think twice of the prospect of having a large, unfriendly, or overly friendly roomie.
Pupil, I think you have hit the nail on the head. My husband who works in down town Toronto and has seen the number of homeless on the streets increase, has been saying this for years.
There's no doubt that there are people in prison who pose minimal risk to the public, and there are probably other ways to deal with them that would hopeful carry enough deterrance.
As others have said, the truly reprehensible like Williams and Bernardo should never see the light of day again. They should be locked up in a cage and be given the bare minimum to survive.
For inmates who have not committed violent crimes, they could be out cleaning up litter or doing other detail that would be beneficial to the environment, at the same time getting them out of the prison environment for a few hours a day.
Restorative justice is about relationships. If a person murders someone, that person has to learn about the person whose life was taken, has to connect with the victim's family, and the victim's family gets an opportunity to talk to this person who took the life of their loved one. Restorative justice is different for every person and every crime. Being locked up may be necessary in some cases, but it does not work in all cases (I would guess very few). I find restorative justice especially important because the victimized have a voice and it's not all about the perpetrator.
There is lots more I could say. Restorative justice is very complex and I think the government needs to explore it more and put more money towards it, rather than create more jails.
Oh Deb. Could you imagine Christien French's family sitting down to chat with Bernardo??
Like all things restorative justice has it's limits.
Eye for an eye has it's place too, perhaps for white collar criminals. Dollar for dollar?
I agree that restorative justice has its uses, but I definitely do not agree in it for murder.
If you were to put me in front of someone who killed a member of my family, there would be very little talking, except for the pathetic moans of the garbage I had thrown head first into the wall.
Knowing someone who committed a heinous crime, and I believe wouldn't have, had he found the help he needed for his mental unhealth has made me see things differently. The system/we fail these folks. He was "sick" before and I don't doubt he's "sicker" now after jail time. The church is a body of compassion, so yes we should be involved.
There was a good article in the Globe a few weeks back about a "jail" in Belleville,(St Lawrence Valley Correctional Facility) , that was having success based on their model and focus on mental health. No doubt more expensive then regular warehousing of inmates but hopeful on the rehabilitating front.
Maybe "talk" was too tame a word. I just meant that in restorative justice there is some emphasis on the victim and/or the victim's family. They may choose to do nothing or they many have a need to tell this person the damage they have done and how angry they are that this happened. Right now, our justice system only focuses on the perpetrator.
And no, sjd, I can't imagine the French family having a chat, but I can imagine them talking his ear off about the hurt he has caused and maybe crying and yelling. It may not do anything for Bernardo, but it would give the family an opportunity to express their anguish (if they wanted).
And yes, hit the white collar workers where it hurts, dollar for dollar, with interest!
Interesting that these may be the most responses to any blog I have posted through the years.
They have certainly contributed to the conversation, with a combination of heat, light, and a little smoke.
As Laurie points out, jails and prisons tend to be miserable places. Yes, certain individuals need to be removed from society and even punished for their actions. At the same time, prisons are effective breeding grounds for resentment and violence with little chance for rehabilitation.
We want the vast majority of people in prisons to get out one day and make a contribution to society. The few who must stay forever are just that, the very few in the overall picture of the correctional system.
Sadly, the wealthy criminals don't go to jail and live alongside the serial killers. The Canadian system is shockingly lenient to white collar offenders. It has been pointed out that if Conrad Black had only committed his crimes in Canada he would probably be a free man.
So those who are without resources go to jail far more often than the rich. Canadian prisons have a disproportionate number of aboriginal inmates. And as several of you point out, the mentally ill end up in prisons rather than mental institutions.
I'm not just throwing statistics at you. I have seen it with my own eyes. I'll go out on a limb and say that I have spent more days in prison than any of you.
Restorative justice cannot solve every problem, but it has its place. There are many real life stories of RJ working for both victims and victimizers. In fact, it often helps victims feel less victimized.
Thanks for the discussion, including those who spoke more than once. This is healthy and worthwhile. I wish we could get more debate going on other subjects.
Post a Comment