chapter ten Flashcards
chapter ten: youth corrections going to jail
After reading this chapter about the historical foundations of youth institutions in Canada, legislative provisions, and institutional profiles and programs, students will:
- Know the history of juvenile institutions in Canada, from prisons to industrial training schools and correctional centres.
- Have a profile of the use of custody.
- Understand Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) provisions for custody and supervision.
- Know different types of correctional programs, their objectives and philosophies, as well as their successes and failures.
- Understand issues associated with program and legislative philosophies.
The number of youth involved in the system that is commonly referred to as correctional correctional services can be measured in different ways.
correctional services: custodial institutions and probation services for youth offenders in canada
the latter statistics are reported in three ways:
as average daily counts, as a monthly average of daily counts, and as total number of admissions.
counts
Counts give us an indication of how many youth are in the system on any one day or in any one month.
admissions
Admissions refer to the number of youth who have gone through the system in any one year.
- So, for example, for the year 2010–2011 (the most recent for which statistics are available), a total of 24,871 youth were admitted under supervision as a result of a probation sentence. In any one month, though, there were 12,141 youth under supervision. Meanwhile, the rate of probation is 71 per 10,000 youth 12 to 17 years of age, a 14 percent decrease from five years ago (Munch, 2012, pp. 12, 17–18).
why is it important to understand and interpret statistics?
Admission figures are a measure of how many youth are moving through custody, receiving programs, and experiencing the system.
Counts tell us about capacity and are of use to the correctional institutions and probation officials for administrative and operational purposes; when counts are higher than admissions, it suggests that youth are entering the system faster than they are being released.
Rates are a reflection of the youth population as a whole and make sense when we are interested in police crime statistics. Correctional rates can be compared with crime rates to understand how young offenders are sanctioned or to compare changes from year to year or between jurisdictions to see if some provinces or territories are more or less likely than others to use custody or probation.
rates also enable statements about how many from the entire Canadian youth population are locked up or are under probation supervision over a given period of time.
see textbook and table 10.1
remand
to hold an accused person in a prison or detention facility prior to a court appearance or trial, or while awaiting sentence (pretrial detention)
10.2 custody and detention “fast facts” 2010-2011
see textbook
(historical foundations)
The foundation for the practice of institutionalizing Canadian youth separately from adults was laid in 1857 with the passage of the Act for Establishing Prisons for Young Offenders.
what was the intention of establishing prisons for young offenders?
The first institution was opened at Îsle aux Noix on the Richelieu River in October 1858, and the second at Penetanguishene on Georgian Bay in August 1859. Both institutions had formerly been used as army barracks.
The intention was to provide a better environment for youth than was to be found in adult penitentiaries. While both boys and girls were sent to Îsle aux Noix, only boys were detained at Penetanguishene (Carrigan, 1991, pp. 405–406).
Notwithstanding all of the good intentions, both institutions reportedly “fell short of expectations” and became “primarily institutions of work and punishment” (Carrigan, 1991, p. 406).
> from reformatories to industrial schools
In 1867, J.M. Langmuir was appointed as Ontario’s first Inspector of Prisons, Asylums, and Public Charities. He began with a campaign to change correctional philosophy and policy regarding youth.
what was J.M Langmuir’s philosophy and policy regarding youth
His efforts were instrumental in changing Penetanguishene from a “reformatory prison” to a “reformatory for boys,” with a mandate to foster the “education, industrial training and moral reclamation of juvenile delinquents”
Meanwhile, efforts were under way in other parts of the country to provide institutions that would serve as places of reform for all children in need—the poor and the neglected as well as the delinquent
children in need would be prevented from becoming criminals if they received what?
Children in need would be prevented from becoming criminals, it was argued, if they received care and education and were taught a trade through industrial training.
halifax protestant industrial school
Halifax was one of the first cities to develop an institution that provided those things. ^^
The Halifax Protestant Industrial School (established 1864) and the St. Patrick’s Industrial School for Catholic Boys (established 1865) were followed by the Monastery of the Good Shepherd, an Industrial School for Roman Catholic Girls. Ontario’s first industrial schools were the Victoria Industrial School for Boys (established 1887) and the Alexandra Industrial School for Girls (established 1892).
By 1927, a total of 24 industrial schools were spread across the country—nine in Quebec, five in Ontario, four in Nova Scotia, two in British Columbia, two in Manitoba, and one each in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick
what was their routines
All had similar routines: half of each day was spent in school and half in learning a trade. Boys typically received training in carpentry, shoemaking, cooking and baking, and farm and garden work; girls were taught sewing, knitting, crocheting, dressmaking, shoemaking, and domestic science (Carrigan, 1991, p. 422; Sutherland, 1976, p. 137).
> training schools
Officially designated as “industrial training schools” at the turn of the 20th century, these institutions came to be known as simply training schools
> a common term for juvenile correctional institutions before the introduction of the YOA
one of the major reasons for declining rates in the use of training schools was that
One of the major reasons for declining rates in the use of training schools was that provinces began to restrict their use. In the early 1970s, British Columbia abolished the use of secure custody and then, as if anticipating the Young Offenders Act, reintroduced it in 1977, but this reintroduced custody was to be used only for “hardcore” offenders and for the purpose of “protection of society.”
Ontario also restricted the use of training schools; only youth who had committed an offence for which an adult would be sentenced to prison could be sentenced to custody. The development of community programs and group homes in the 1970s further reduced the use of training schools (Markwart, 1992, p. 232).
> youth centres
Correctional systems for young people underwent structural and procedural changes with the introduction of the YOA.two
Two levels of custody were established, secure and open, and the court was required to set the level of custody at sentencing.
what’s secure and what’s open
secure: a form of youth custody under the YOA that required more restrictions on movement, both within and outside an institution
open: a form of youth custody under the YOA that required fewer restrictions on movement, both within anf outside an institution, than was required for secure custody
how is there a considerable variation in facilities across the country?
When sentenced for a murder conviction in youth court, a set period of community supervision was also required after a youth was released from custody. While the court established level of custody, provinces were given the power to designate which of their facilities would classify as open (limited restrictions on movement) or secure (maximum restrictions on movement). Hence, there was considerable variation in facilities across the country.
ex: newfoundland and labrador
In Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, the Department of Social Services Division of Youth Corrections was responsible for carrying out the sentence of the court. This department has two divisions—Community Correctional Services and Secure Custody and Remand Services. Community Correctional Services was responsible for alternative measures, non-custodial supervision programs, and open-custody services and facilities. Newfoundland and Labrador’s open-custody facilities consisted of eight group homes, three assessment centres, and foster homes. There were two facilities for secure custody and remand—the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre in Whitbourne and the Pleasantville Youth Centre in St. John’s. In 1994–1995, funding was allocated for an additional regional youth centre in Corner Brook (Newfoundland and Labrador, 1996).
ex: british columbia
n British Columbia, youth institutions and other young offender programs such as probation and alternative measures came under the jurisdiction of the Ministry for Children and Families. British Columbia had five secure-custody centres—one on Vancouver Island, one in Vancouver, one in the Fraser Valley, one in the Interior, and one in the North Region. There were seven open-custody facilities, one in each region and three in Vancouver. There were also three community-based residential centres (CBRCs) in the province.
ex: ontario and nova scotia
Ontario and Nova Scotia were unique in that the implementation of the YOA created a split jurisdiction over young offenders, resulting in 12- to 15-year-olds being processed differently from 16- to 17-year-olds. In both provinces, 16- to 17-year-olds remained under the jurisdiction of adult corrections and 12- to 15-year-olds under the jurisdiction of the youth system. Courts were also operated separately. Youth under 15 were processed under the family court, as they had been under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. Youth aged 16 to 17 were processed in adult court under YOA restrictions; the court was referred to as “youth court” when young offender cases were heard. Both provinces have since moved to have all young offenders processed through the family court.
read textbook for more
> custody provisions under the YCJA
The whole concept of custody, as a sanction for the criminal offences of youth, changed under the YCJA.
how
with the YOA, custody was mostly perceived and used as an end in itself, leading to a number of aftercare issues to be discussed later in the chapter.
With the YCJA, custody is no longer an entity unto itself, but rather exists as part of a larger system of programs and community supervision designed to rehabilitate and reintegrate young offenders back into the community as law-abiding people.
. This represents an important shift in emphasis regarding the purpose of custody. The wording of the YCJA refers to custody as “the custody and supervision system,” and it is clear that its purpose is a welfare and restorative one: to carry out the sentence of the court and assist in the reintegration and rehabilitation of youth. Still, the ultimate objective is one of crime control: to “contribute to the protection of society” (see Box 10.3). Interestingly, these are also the purposes of the adult correctional system, as mandated by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Sentencing options under the YCJA create two new aspects of youth correctional programs:
the conditional supervision order, and intensive rehabilitation custody and supervision.
Youth serving a custody sentence are now required to serve the latter portion of their sentence in the community under supervision.
Section 105(2) of the YCJA outlines the regulations regarding the conditions of a conditional supervision order and the powers of the provincial director regarding required and discretionary conditions.
conditional supervision order: requires a person under supervision to abide by particular conditions set by the court
ex: attend drug or alcohol rehabilitation programs
Under this section, the provincial director is required to bring a young person to the youth justice court before the custodial portion of her or his sentence expires, for the court to set the specific conditions of the youth’s conditional supervision
The necessary conditions of the conditional supervision order include:
1) Keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
2) Appear before the youth justice court when required;
3) Be under the supervision of the provincial director or designate;
4) Inform the provincial director when arrested or questioned by the police;
5) Report to the police as instructed;
6) Advise the provincial director of any change in address, employment, vocational or educational training, volunteer work, family or financial situation, and any changes that might affect the young person’s ability to comply with the conditions of the order;
7) Do not own, possess, or have the control of any weapon, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, prohibited device, or explosive substance; and
8) Comply with any reasonable instructions that the provincial director considers necessary.
Requiring supervision for the latter part of a custody term may give the impression to some of a reduction of time served in custody, but section 98 allows for an application to the court to keep youth in custody for the entire sentence. In addition, the court may impose any number of additional conditions regarding where the youth will live and with whom; what efforts the youth will make to get a job, attend school, or become involved in a training or recreational program; restrictions on moving out of the court’s jurisdiction; and any other conditions the court considers appropriate to promote the youth’s reintegration. In Table 10.1, we see that in 2010–2011, there was an average daily count of 328 youth under this type of supervision.
see table 10.4 for purpose of custody and supervision
A related new sentencing option allows the court to defer a custody term. The deferred custody and supervision order
deferred custody and supervision order: a sentence option created by the YCJA that is similar to “house arrest” sentences for adults
. The deferred custody and supervision order permits a judge to sentence a youth to a term in custody (maximum six months) and also to specify that this sentence will be deferred in favour of the youth serving the duration of the sentence under conditional supervision in the community.
A violation of conditions in these cases does not involve a new charge of breach, but rather the possibility that the youth will be incarcerated. Judges were slow to adopt this sentence but its use has increased, from 1,152 in 2004–2005 to 1,471 (5 percent of guilty cases) in 2011–2012 (
n Table 10.1, we see that in 2010–2011, there was an average daily count of 422 youth under this type of community supervision. This sentence can only be used when a case actually qualifies for custody, and it is often used in recognition of a youth’s active efforts to turn his or her life around. In R. v. C.W. (2007), the judge took into account the youth’s expressions of remorse, steps the youth took to change his life, as well as recommendations from family and probation to justify a deferred custody and supervision sentence.
intensive rehabilitative custody and supervision order
refers to a sentencee of the court whereby a youth must serve a custody term in a facility designated as a rehabilitation institution
The intensive rehabilitative custody and supervision order is reserved for youth convicted of the most serious violent offences—murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault—or a youth who is a repeat offender and has been convicted of a serious violent offence for which an adult would be liable to a prison term of more than two years.
. In addition, section 42(7) of the YCJA also requires the court to establish three other conditions that limit its use:
(b) the young person is suffering from a mental illness or disorder, a psychological disorder, or an emotional disturbance;
(c) a plan of treatment and intensive supervision has been developed for the young person, and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the plan might reduce the risk of the young person repeating the offence or committing a serious violent offence; and
(d) the provincial director has determined that an intensive rehabilitative custody and supervision program is available and that the young person’s participation in the program is appropriate.
Two other aspects of the YCJA complement and strengthen the rehabilitative and reintegrative mandate of section 83(1):
youth workers and reintegration leave.
. Under the YOA, youth workers’ duties and functions were connected to community dispositions, such as probation and conditional supervision. The YCJA section 90 requires that a youth worker be assigned to every youth sentenced to custody. This worker is responsible for developing plans for the youth’s reintegration into the community that include the most effective programs for the young person, as well as supervising and providing support to the youth when she or he is released from custody and is under supervision in the community. The wording of the legislation implies that a young person will have the same caseworker for the duration of the sentence.
The YOA allowed for temporary absences and day release (escorted or unescorted) from custody for a period of up to 15 days. These releases were granted by the provincial director for medical, compassionate, humanitarian, or rehabilitative reasons, or to allow a youth to attend school, find a job or work, or participate in training or treatment programs. The YCJA refers to this type of release [s. 91(1), (2)] as “reintegrative leave.” It allows release for the same reasons as the YOA, and extends such a release to a 30-day period that can be renewed any number of times.
(youth custody issues)
Issues relevant to the use of custody have varied over the course of the history of juvenile justice in Canada, depending to a great extent on the legislation and its reforms over time. A major concern over the past 20 years, since the YOA era, has been the use of custody, how many and which youth are sentenced to terms of custody or held in detention and for what offences. The YCJA brought with it concerns about liability for adult sentences for youth and how they would be served. Now, issues are being raised around the appropriateness of institutional/custodial environments for young people, especially those in adult institutions. In this, we seem to have returned to matters of concern to the Victorian reformers who worked to get children and youth out of the criminal justice system.
> changing use of custody
> youth facility location
> the effect of prison on children and youth
> youth serving adult sentences
> administrative segregation
> age jurisdiction
> changing use of custody
A total of 16,279 youth were admitted to custodial facilities in 2010–2011, and a large proportion of these were remanded to custody to await trial or sentencing.
On any given day, more than half of youth in custody (56 percent) were in remand
While daily counts for youth serving custodial sentences have been decreasing steadily since the implementation of the YCJA, remand counts, youth waiting for trial or sentencing, began increasing in the later YOA years and continued to do so under the YCJA. Bill C-10 changes to provisions for pretrial detention will likely result in a continuation of these increases. While most youth spend only a short period of time in detention, it is not necessarily a benign experience for a youth.
Box 10.5 describes the circumstances leading up to the death of David Meffe, held in detention in the Toronto Youth Assessment Centre in 2002.
see more on textbook
- In the last year of the YOA, remand admissions were highest for both property and violent offences (This now appears to be changing (Table 10.4))
- Under the YOA, property offences predominated among sentenced admissions, although their proportion declined
- Over the same period, the proportion of sentenced admissions for YOA and administrative offences increased, from 12.2 percent to 19 percent, while the proportion of sentenced admissions for violent offences also increased, from 16 percent to 22 percent.
- entenced admissions for YCJA and administrative offences have remained fairly constant over this 10-year period. Judges’ preference under the YOA for short sentences may be waning.
One of the interesting effects of the YOA was that its implementation reversed the declining JDA trend in the use of custody. Most research comparing the uses of incarceration under the JDA and the YOA has concluded that the YOA created an increase in the use of custody for young offenders
Some of this research was considered problematic because it had not considered age differences before and after legislative change.
Nonetheless, when age is considered, the results regarding increased use of custody are astounding. From 1984–1985 to 1989–1990, virtually every province increased its use of custody. Of course, increases varied across the country, so, for example, between the last year of the JDA and the third year of the YOA, youth custody use in British Columbia increased by 85 percent, while adult admissions to custody in British Columbia decreased by 12 percent; in Manitoba, the youth population sentenced to custody increased by 148 percent
- provincial variation
While custody trends were fairly consistent across the country, there were and are provincial variations.
see textbook
- explaining changes and interprovincial variation
When increases in the use of custody were first noticed, they were largely understood to be a result of the new philosophy of the YOA. It was argued that judges were favouring crime-control principles over welfare principles
This interpretation was supported by the fact that more youth were going into custody for shorter periods of time, with the greatest increases occurring for sentences of three months or less—a trend that is also reflected in more recent statistics
. It seemed that judges were shifting toward a “short, sharp shock” style of sentencing. However, Leonard, Smandych, and Brickey (1996) suggest that these increases were due more to changes in sentencing practice and the consequence of these changes than to the adoption of a new philosophy. They argue that shorter sentences ultimately give youth more opportunity to commit crimes; the result is an increase in the number of offenders, some of whom are being committed to custody three or more times in a single year.
what is another problem requiring explanation?
The other problem requiring explanation is the variation in rates across the country. In spite of reporting consistent increases, not all provinces are using custody at the same rate
> youth facility location