Do Independent External Decision Makers Ensure that “An Inmate’s Confinement in a Structured Intervention Unit Is to End as Soon as Possible”? [Corrections and Conditional Release Act, Section 33]

The Government of Canada established Correctional Service Canada’s (CSC) Structured Intervention Units (SIUs) to be a substitute for “Administrative Segregation” as it officially was known, or Solitary Confinement as it is more commonly known. The goals – explicit in the legislation governing federal penitentiaries (the Corrections and Conditional Release Act) – included provisions that SIUs were to be used as little as possible and that prisoners would be transferred from them as soon as possible. This report examines some aspects of the operation of the IEDMs – the only SIU oversight mechanism that is currently active – using administrative data provided to us by CSC in January 2021. These administrative data deal only with IEDM reviews of the length of an SIU stay (CCRA: s37.8). We did not have data on other important reviews carried out by IEDMs, most notably the reviews that are required when a prisoner does not get the requisite number of hours out of the cell

Views of the punishment of youth, the dimensions of punitiveness

grantor: University of TorontoOver the past 25 years public opinion polls in Canada, the United States, England and Australia have posed various forms of the question: "In your view, do you think sentences are too harsh, about right, or not harsh enough?" At any given time roughly two thirds to four fifths of respondents will answer "too lenient". The public perception of leniency in sentencing appears to transcend areas of the justice system (youth and adult) and countries. Many have used the perception of leniency in sentencing as evidence of "punitiveness" and have devoted much time investigating why it is that people are "punitive". Interestingly absent from many studies is a discussion of what "punitiveness", as a concept, reflects. Clearly support for "harsher" sentences is a "punitive" policy choice, but is it accurate to say that people who endorse such a policy are punitive? That is, are people who endorse such a policy consistently punitive? How pervasive is "punitiveness"? Researchers have presented punitiveness as a one-dimensional, binary concept--people are either punitive or not punitive. The research presented here challenges the view that public punitiveness is a simple, one-dimensional binary concept by investigating views towards youth justice policies and youth court sentences. There appear to be at least two levels of punitiveness. There is a "broad" level (views of leniency in youth court) and a "specific" level (views of sentences in specific young offenders cases). While these two levels of views are related to one another, they are each shaped by different factors. It was hypothesized that people who are broadly punitive may hold a different image of young offenders from those who are not broadly punitive. The results reveal that those who hold broad punitive views do not have different images of young offenders. Instead, the majority of respondents believe that young offenders reject society's system of sanctioning inappropriate behaviour. That view is inaccurate. Young offenders, when presented with hypothetical cases, most often feel that a prison sentence would be appropriate and sentence cases using the societal norm of proportionality.Ph.D

Une comparaison de la délinquance des jeunes au Canada et aux États-Unis

Cet article étudie les tendances de la délinquance juvénile au Canada et aux États-Unis pour la période entre 1991 et 1996. En ce qui concerne les infractions sérieuses commises avec violence, les infractions contre la propriété et les infractions liées à l'usage de la drogue, le Canada avait, en général, un plus faible taux d'arrestations que les États-Unis. Cependant, quand on observe les affaires qui ont reçu un traitement judiciaire formel, on se rend compte que le Canada avait des taux similaires ou à peine plus élevés que les États-Unis en ce qui a trait aux infractions avec violence et aux infractions contre la propriété. Aux États-Unis, la moitié des cas de délinquance juvénile échappait à la judiciarisation. Le Canada avait recours à la mise sous garde dans des proportions similaires ou un peu plus élevées que les États-Unis en ce qui concerne les infractions avec violence ou les infractions contre la propriété. C'est seulement pour les infractions reliées à la drogue que les États-Unis avaient un plus haut taux d'arrestations, d'affaires judiciarisées et de mises sous garde que le Canada. Les États-Unis transféraient aussi les cas de mineurs aux tribunaux pour adultes dans des proportions beaucoup plus élevées. Enfin, il n'est pas établi que les infractions avec violence commises par les jeunes aient augmenté tant au Canada qu'aux États-Unis entre 1991 et 1996. La plus grande « augmentation de crimes » concernait les infractions reliées à la drogue.This paper investigates trends in youth crime from 1991 to 1996 in Canada and the United States. Generally, Canada had lower arrest rates than the United States for serious violent offences, property and drug offences. However, when looking at the formal juvenile court processing of cases, Canada had similar, or slightly higher rates than the US for all violence and all property cases. The United States diverted about half of the cases from the formal juvenile court process. Canada used custody at a similar, or slightly higher rate than the US for violent offences and property offences. Only in drug related offences did the United States have higher arrest and court processing rates, and used custody at a higher rate than Canada. The United States transferred cases to adult court at a substantially higher rate than Canada. Overall, there appeared to be no evidence that serious violent youth crime had increased in either Canada or the United States between 1991 and 1996. The greatest "crime increase" for both countries was in drug related offences

Do Independent External Decision Makers Ensure that “An Inmate’s Confinement in a Structured Intervention Unit Is to End as Soon as Possible”? [Corrections and Conditional Release Act, Section 33]

The Government of Canada established Correctional Service Canada’s (CSC) Structured Intervention Units (SIUs) to be a substitute for “Administrative Segregation” as it officially was known, or Solitary Confinement as it is more commonly known. The goals – explicit in the legislation governing federal penitentiaries (the Corrections and Conditional Release Act) – included provisions that SIUs were to be used as little as possible and that prisoners would be transferred from them as soon as possible. This report examines some aspects of the operation of the IEDMs – the only SIU oversight mechanism that is currently active – using administrative data provided to us by CSC in January 2021. These administrative data deal only with IEDM reviews of the length of an SIU stay (CCRA: s37.8). We did not have data on other important reviews carried out by IEDMs, most notably the reviews that are required when a prisoner does not get the requisite number of hours out of the cell

The Evolution of Life Sentences For Second-Degree Murder: Parole Ineligibility and Time Spent in Prison

Canada's murder sentencing regime has been in effect since 1976, and yet very little data has examined what these sentences actually mean for those convicted. This paper begins to fill this gap by examining the meaning of a life sentence for those convicted of second degree murder in Canada. Using data provided by the Correctional Investigator, we examine both the parole ineligibility periods imposed by sentencing judges, and how long people are serving before a grant of full parole over time from 1977 to 2020. We found statistically significant increases over time in both judicial parole ineligibility periods, and in how long people are serving beyond their first full parole eligibility date. We also found that Indigenous persons are more likely to serve longer periods of time past their parole ineligibility date. We conclude that, at every point in the process, sentencing for murder has become increasingly harsh over time with no obvious public safety rationale for this increase. </p