3C Part 2.

The 3C Report ( Conviction Confinement Correction )

 

Part 2. Confinement; The Incarceration System.

The first issue is that of people being placed in confinement before trial. These are people not yet guilty of any crime, but who are considered unable to be left at large. There are situations when this may be necessary. Concern for victims must not be reduced. However the statistics on this are alarming; “Prisoners awaiting trial accounted for 57 percent of the total number of inmates in provincial jails.” according to Stats-Canada report in 2015. This has not gone down, “The average number of adults in remand in 2017 increased 3% when compared to the previous year” These people are living under the exact same conditions as convicted criminals who are serving their sentences. Usually they are mixed together with absolutely no distinctions made.

Being confined for more than a few days will often cause a person to lose his job. If he can not communicate effectively with friends on the outside he may well lose his apartment and all his possessions. Being placed on remand is a potential destructive form of punishment. That is in addition to its psychological impact. The isolation, depression, and dangers are compounded by the uncertainty of the situation. While some people spend less than one month on remand, others end up there for nearly a year, as technical issues move their trail dates around. (The crown prosecutor will sometimes delay if they feel the case is weak, to ensure that the accused spends more time in jail whatever the outcome of the trail may be.) Let me be very clear, remand is punishment !

We should recognize there is a fundamental difference between a none guilty individual being held and a convicted individual serving a sentence. The two should not be put in the same box – literally. There should be community options available, that may include some restrictions and monitoring, but do not destroy a person’s life. A system more like that used in half way houses, if the person can not stay where he is. If a person must be confined, then a separate institute or a clearly separate section of a provincial jail, should be used.

The main concern here, is to protect the public safety without causing undue harm to the person who is by law “innocent until proven guilty”. Some limitations to personal freedom may be required, but the conditions should not be exactly the same as those of a prisoner who is being punished for his crime.

To explain in a simple way; A remand centre should be more like a cheep hotel, possibly one you are not allowed to leave. It should not be a 6x14 concrete cell with a 2inch foam mat as your bed, and a guy serving 8 months, as your roommate.

One of the major concerns of the confined is communication with the outside world. Communication with friends, family and your lawyer should be unlimited, and you should have opportunity and even aid to get your affairs in order. This is a serious difficulty under the current remand system. Accomplishing even simple tasks once you are in jail is a lot harder and more time consuming than most people can imagine.

It is understandable that the public may not like the idea of accused criminals, especially the repeat offenders, being allowed to enjoy such soft treatment. But the principal must be recognized; those not yet found guilty are innocent and should not be tossed in with those who are serving a sentence.

The next point is about incarceration being an overused punishment.

The tough on crime mentality says; Offenders should be put away in harsh conditions for long periods, to teach them a lesson and serve as a warning to other wood-be criminals. These convicts deserve the minimal essentials of life and should not be allowed luxuries and privileges.

To a limited degree this harsh treatment approach does have some merit. For some, especially first time offenders, a short sharp sentence can act as a strong deterrent against future bad behaviour. But for many it will make no real difference because the underlying issues that drove the person to commit a crime are not addressed. The harsh sentence idea relies on the power of negative reinforcement as a behaviour control. What seems poorly understood is how time and situation play into the mix. A person when thrown in jail for the first time will be horrified, it is a horrible place. Very soon they will be saying “I will do anything to get out, I just want to go home. I will do whatever it takes to avoid coming back here.” If the sentence is short and sharp, followed by a program to address the underlying issues that caused the criminal behaviour, then a lot of good may be accomplished.

Unfortunately, any lengthy stay in prison forces a person past the adaptation point. There comes a day when the horrible situation is accepted as normal by the person trapped in it. Unpleasant, often dull, sometimes dangerous, but normal. The shock value has worn off. He may never want to go to jail again, but it will not hold the same sort of fear and dread that it did at first. Oddly enough lot of convicts will return to prison, because they they find it more familiar and comfortable than the chaotic life outside. Or maybe its more accurate to say that they return because they don't see any other path in life.

What is the main aim of confinement?

1. To keep a troublesome person out of society / to protect society from an individual. In this case clear evidence should be shown that the criminal is not manageable, that he will almost certainly do harm to people and property if not confined. Situations of long standing rivalry and violence, where threats have been made are the most obvious examples, or cases where a person has gone to extreme lengths to “get even” and it seems likely he will continue this pattern of behaviour. Also of concern is the feeling of safety that a victim of a crime may have. When a criminal is put away for a few years, he is no danger for that time and the victim can sleep better.

2. As a form of punishment / to make the criminal suffer for their misdeeds. While knowing the criminal is suffering may help make a victim feel better, it really is not very helpful at reducing crime. It is simply a traditional view we hold onto despite the mountain of evidence against it as a useful policy. The public desire to be tough on crime is something of a miss-focus of the public eye. The drive should be to reduce crime in effective ways.

3. To keep criminals in a controlled environment while they undergo rehabilitation. In this situation confinement is not primarily a punishment but rather a necessary part of the correction program. While some people can undergo a rehabilitation process out in the community (if the resources are available) it may not be the best option for maximum results. When you are incarcerated most of life’s concerns, work and other activities, are suspended. You have a lot of time on your hands, with very few things to do. Thus it is a good environment to focus on self examination and improvement, guided by rehabilitation programming. In this case the sentence length (more exactly the confinement stage of a sentence) would be linked to the length of a corrective program; evaluation + program itself + assessment.

A program that offers examination and correction of a person’s behaviour, can be good in any situation. It should be offered at both Provincial and Federal levels of incarceration and also as part of any community based sentence where the offender does not serve jail time.

When viewing confinement as part of the rehabilitation process, rather than confinement as punishing and warehousing criminals, we may better focus on the issue of mental health and alternative sentencing. 

Many people are in jail today because of addictions that got out of hand and resulted in criminal acts. What they need more than punishment is help.

Consider a new form of confinement centre. It would be built along the lines of a minimum security prison, with its aim being rehabilitation and reintegration, rather than minimalist housing for inmates designed to make them suffer for their crimes. It would have an environment to provide as many normalizing factors as possible. It would be a controlled environment of course, but not one that makes every effort to provide an unpleasant experience. 

A common problem people have with any lengthy trip to jail is that they come out more messed up than they were when they went in. Readjustment to society, overcoming anxiety and paranoia are serious issues for many convicts coming out of jail, even for those who were relatively normal in their social functionality. The 3C confinement correction centre, would try to reduce the negative effects of captivity, while rehabilitation goes on, so the person will have the best chance of a smooth social reintegration. 

 

Also we should combine elements of basic education and job skills training into these centres. While the primary concern must be for an individual to become better able to manage himself so he will not offend again, many also need help with the more normal subjects of education and even some basic life skills.

There is a near total lack of programming, education and job training at the provincial level. 

 

The argument here is that confinement at this level is usually for short terms only, and always less than 2 years, so most inmates don't have time for any program. It is a good point, but also totally negates the institute as a corrections centre. Without any counselling, programming, education, what is it doing? It is warehousing and punishing people, in hope that their unpleasant experience will convince them never to commit another crime.

As part of the reform to provide effective reduction of recurring crime, I would suggest Provincial jails need to be run more like Federal ones, with programs, education, job training and even some sort of parole system. Or we divide Provincial jails into two separate sections; 1. Remand Centres that only hold people waiting trail, under relatively generous conditions. 2. Punishment Centres that only hold convicted criminals for very short terms under harsh conditions.

Recommendations for Reform of the incarceration system.

Point 1. Remand centres, separate from prisons. They should have various levels of security and confinement to deal with the innocent-until-proven-guilty people who can not be allowed unsupervised freedom until their trial date. These centres would facilitate the person’s interaction with the community rather than limiting them.

Point 2. Probation being turned into a more viable alternative, even in the case of some serious crimes. People should be kept in the community, unless it is clearly proven that they are unmanageable and dangerous. There should even be an option of relocation, in cases where the offender is cooperative but some people in the community really do not want him there. In many situations probation should include a general program of self management and a specific program to deal with the issue most linked to the criminal behaviour.

Point 2.5 Probationary Half-Way Houses should exist, and follow the general form and function of their name sake. Offenders maybe required to live in one for a term. This can be especially effective when combined with a rehabilitation program, because the offender does not have to worry about holding a job and paying rent, he can focus more on self improvement. Then take the necessary steps to get back on his feet.

Point 3. Short sharp sentences. The provincial level of incarceration should be revised, with its main function to punish people for 30 days or less. The conditions should be as uncomfortable as possible (without violating human rights) with the time span being kept very short. A full three weeks should be seen as a serious sentence, not to be handed out lightly. This is punishment pure and simple, not rehabilitation.

Point 4. Correction Centres (not warehouses) as a new institution of provincial or federal level incarceration. These would be in a style similar to a minimum security prison. Their main aim being rehabilitation not punishment. They would include not only behaviour modifying programs but also general education and job skill training. However, in order to make this effective a stay of one year or more would be required.

Point 5. Federal medium and maximum prisons would still need to exist. It must be admitted that some people do not want to reform themselves. The use of these institutes would be for repeat offenders and those with extreme violence, the unmanageable. (and those who try to escape from the Correction Centres)

Point 6. Parole should be required after any institutional stay. Typically a term would be spent in a Half-Way House, with close supervision and tight regulation, followed by a term of more relaxed parole conditions. There should also be resources to aid the person with re-integration to society. Basically what Parole is now, except extending it to Provincial level offenders.

For example;

A first offence may see you sentenced to Probation, including some months in a probationary half-way house, during which time you must take a program, followed by a period when you are given more freedom of movement and may reside on your own.

A second offence would send you to the Provincial Punishment Canter for a short stay between 1 to 3 weeks, followed by a Parole period including time in a half-way house, while taking a rehabilitation course, then time on parole at large. This should even be a consideration for many of crimes that are today listed as serious, so long as the offender is deemed manageable. With an appropriately longer time served on parole after the punishment phase, to allow for a full reform program.

For serious crimes or repeat offenders a trip to the Corrections Centre would be in order. Assuming the offended is found to be interested in reform. This may be in addition to a term in the Punishment Centre or not, as the judge likes it. The part of the sentence served at the CC would be linked to the rehabilitation program and other help that is pest given in a controlled environment. Minimum time would be about 1 year. After which he would serve a Parole period.

For those who are highly uncooperative, a sentence would send them to a more traditional warehouse institute. With the understanding that after some time there would be a review to determine if they qualify to enter the Corrections Canter for programming.

What must be kept in mind is the following;

“Different environments create different behaviours. This has been proven. The correctional service should take seriously the research. What patterns of behaviour are being created or reinforced by the environment of a given confinement institute? Are they actually beneficial to society, to the rehabilitation and integration process?”