Final Exam Flashcards
Explain New Generation Prison Facilities (Short Answer #1)
Prison facilities/corrections have long existed dating back all the way to the 17th-18th centuries. During those early times particularly during the 17th century the main focuses were on shaming, and blatant physical punishments, then by the 18th century, there was a shift to institutions as the preferred response to the management of ‘population problems’. Now modern-day prison facilities, often referred to as “direct-supervision” facilities - show a shift from the traditional prison designs to more modern and now behaviour-focused plans. These new-generation facilities use a podular design, where each pod has 12-24 cells arranged in a triangular layout that is around a shared common area. This allows correctional officers who are in the centre of the pod to always have a vision of the cells and the prisoner common areas. According to Collin Goff’s text, this direct supervision approach allows close interaction between inmates and staff, better communication, and control. These new-generation prison facilities within Canada and for the most part globally have all implemented the “Auburn Model” system, shifting from the prior “Pennsylvania System”. The Auburn model is a system where prisoners work and eat together during the day but with strict silence with no speaking while eating or doing any tasks and at night they are housed in individual cells. This system is believed to prevent corruption among the inmates and to maintain order. Additionally, unlike the conditions of the traditional prisons, these new-generation facilities aimed to maintain humane conditions with new limits imposed on solitary confinement, and also include other home-like elements which aim to ensure the conditions are humane and reduce anger and stress within the facilities. To conclude, research in Goff’s text suggests that modern prison facilities which are geared to be rehabilitative rather than just for punishments have in fact contributed to lower recidivism rates, lower rates of destructive behaviour among inmates, and show how these new generation facilities are more beneficial to society than the previous early generation systems.
Explain Problem-solving courts (Short answer #2)
Problem-solving courts are a recent but fully established change that was implemented within the Canadian criminal justice system. Problem-solving courts are simply defined as a court system that is designed to divert offenders with special needs from the criminal justice system. It seeks to address the issues by maintaining its 3 defining attributes: 1. Focusing on addressing the underlying problems of offenders, victims, and communities, 2. Interagency & interdisciplinary collaboration and lastly 3. Accountability to the community. These courts have the potential to improve the quality of life in communities, increase resident familiarity with the court process and increase community satisfaction with the response to persons in conflict. The overall intent is to shift from an adversarial or legalistic approach to one centred on treatment and rehabilitation. The focus is on addressing the underlying issues that contributed to criminal offending and developing a specific, tailored, individualized intervention plan to address the behaviour as well as the circumstances that contributed to it. Unlike the traditional court process, problem-solving courts involve offenders as active participants in addressing their behaviour and needs. The traditional court systems also prioritize the efficiency of the procedures and rely heavily on lawyers; problem-solving courts try to emphasize direct communication between the judges and the accused/clients to foster a more personalized, and supportive environment which also in turn supports rehabilitation.
Some of the specialized problem-solving courts include drug treatment courts, mental health courts, and Indigenous courts. In these specialized courts, they leverage resources from outside of the court and judicial system. For example, offenders may avoid incarceration by agreeing to abide by specified conditions. For example, in the DTC (Drug Treatment Courts) the offender may agree to participate in a drug-abuse treatment program and to submit to regular drug testing. Similarly, mental health courts could collaborate with healthcare providers to ensure access to necessary treatments. Despite these potential benefits mentioned so far with the problem-solving courts, there are some drawbacks to them in regards to their effectiveness including; high rates of non-compliance, the conditions, non-completion of programs and limited success in attracting marginalized people particularly Indigenous people. According to the textbook reading, a study showed that approximately 84% of the participants from a Toronto Drug Treatment Program from a problem-solving court did not comply, with or complete their mandated program. Additionally, there are concerns that the therapeutic approach of the problem-solving courts reduces the ‘fact-finding’ nature of the courts, and thus because of that judges may have to assume the role of a therapist which is obviously beyond and outside the scope of their job in the judicial system. The problem-solving courts seem to be the most effective in reducing reoffending when the principles of risk, needs and responsitivity are followed which means when attention is given to selecting offenders who are most suited for the program in terms of their level of risk, their needs and their motivation or ability to complete the requirements from the court.
Tommy story example - daughter died, tommy mental health gets worse, starts relaying on drugs and alcohol, gets caught drunk driving
Explain Plea Bargaining (Short answer #3)
Plea bargaining is simply an agreement where an accused pleads guilty in exchange for the promise of some sort of benefit. Plea bargaining has risen and started to play a major role in the Canadian criminal justice system. This is because the majority of the cases within the system are not brought to a courtroom to be heard in a trial. According to a study published in the textbook, in Ontario in 2014-15, only 5.1% of all adult cases were resolved with a trial, with jury trials being even more rare. This all can be attributed to the emergence of plea bargaining because the cases are being resolved behind the scenes. Plea bargaining was not always seen to have a place in the criminal justice system, but in 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada described plea agreements as “vitally important to the well-being of the criminal justice system and was noted that without plea negotiations, the justice system would “eventually collapse under its own weight” according to the SCC statement in the textbook.
Plea bargaining entails discussions between the crown prosecutor and the defence regarding the charges the accused is facing, discussions of procedure, discussions of the sentence, and discussions about the facts of the alleged offence, which are all being done with the intent of expediting the trial of the accused. If the discussions about the case and the facts are successful; it might result in a plea agreement where the accused gives up the right to make the Crown prove the case at a trial in exchange for the promise of a benefit. For example, the crown can impose the chance of a lower sentence by withdrawing some charges, reducing a charge to a lesser but related offence, or by proceeding as a summary charge rather than an indictable one. Some of the key functions of plea bargaining that are noteworthy include reducing the backlog of cases, sparing complainants from having to testify, helping offenders take accountability by admitting guilt, and does not compromise the administration of justice. With these benefits, there are some drawbacks to plea bargaining which include not following any policy or guidelines which can make it subject to abuse, placing pressure on innocent defendants to ‘cop a plea’ to avoid being found guilty at trial and receiving a more severe sentence, placing pressure on people who committed offences to plead guilty, and lastly, it is a closed process that is not subject to public scrutiny and threatens the rights of accused persons. In the 1990s, plea bargaining was an uprising practice to help reduce case delay, but it had its drawbacks while trying to achieve that. A major example of this is the R.v Askov case, where Askov and his associates were into blackmailing and extortion, and Askov had a shotgun and beat up a victim, Askov got charged and had a pre-trial and then had to wait 2 years (34) months, and his lawyers claimed that you cannot wait this long and this was a charter violation, and thus they claimed the courts knew about case delays, and eventually Askov went to the Supreme Court and had his charges thrown out. Police started overcharging people to avoid cases being thrown out. By 1993, the Ontario Ministry of Attorney General Advisory Committee released the Martin report, which says that there needs to be plea bargains as a reality to avoid future cases like Askov.
Explain workplace/safety corporate crime (short answer #4)
Corporate crime simply refers to illegal acts or omissions committed by or within legitimate organizations, usually driven by a desire to benefit the corporation itself. These crimes are very different compared to individual or any street-level crimes in their nature, scope, and impact. Between 1972 and 1981 more than 10,000 Canadians died from work-related injuries, and it was seen that Canada has about 500 homicides per year, but almost 15,000 die from corporate inaction. In corporate crime, the organization is the perpetrator, where they engage in planned decision-making or negligent practices with the goal of maximizing profits. Corporate crime has 3 broad major categories: environmental, safety, and financial. In this answer, I will be discussing safety corporate crime which these typically cause some sort of physical harm, such as injuries or death resulting from workplace safety violations or selling unsafe products.
Corporate crimes are far more harmful than the offences we would usually of as crimes. This is because according to the Snider reading Canadians are 6 times more likely to die from unsafe working conditions on the job than to be murdered on the street. On-the-job rates are 30 times higher than homicide rates in Canada and the USA, yet despite these incidents being severe, the governments do not define employer negligence as murder and a large number of corporate crimes go unreported showing a clear imbalance of how justice is administered in the criminal justice system. A clear example of Corporate crime regarding safety is the Maple Leafs Foods Listeriosis outbreak from 2008. In this case, there was a Listeriosis outbreak in Toronto in 2008 linked to Maple Leaf Foods where 22 people died and 57 others got sick after consuming cold-cut meat contaminated with the Listeriosis bacteria. This outbreak was traced back to unsanitary practices at a Maple Leaf Foods processing facility in North York, Toronto. More specifically, an improperly cleaned meat-cutting machine allowed the bacteria to thrive and contaminate the food products which were distributed across the country. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), the federal body responsible for overseeing food safety, played a critical yet problematic role in this incident as investigations showed that CFIA inspectors spent an average of fewer than two hours per day at the plant in the months that led up to the outbreak. Even during the visits, inspectors focused mostly on administrative tasks rather than conducting food safety inspections. To add to the problem, the CFIA faced severe resource constraints due to budget cuts and threats of privatization. By 2014-2015, its budget had been further reduced by $35 million and staff numbers dropped by 192 employees. These reductions significantly hindered the agency’s ability to perform the oversight needed and created gaps that allowed food safety hazards to go unnoticed. In response to the outbreak, Maple Leaf Foods increased cleaning protocols and CFIA inspectors spent more time at the plant but systemic problems still existed as CFIA plans for the future still included additional budget cuts in the area of meat and poultry inspection. This incident shows the direct consequences of corporate negligence but also shows the reliance on corporations to self-regulate even at the expense of public health.
The Westray Mine disaster in Plymouth, Nova Scotia, remains one of Canada’s most infamous workplace safety tragedies. On May 9, 1992, an underground explosion caused by methane gas ignited by a mining machine killed 26 miners. The explosion was so powerful that it blew off the mine entrance located over a mile from the blast’s center. Only 15 bodies were recovered, while the remaining 11 remain entombed in the mine.
What makes the Westray Mine explosion particularly tragic is the fact that it was entirely preventable. A government inquiry titled The Westray Story: A Predictable Path to Disaster revealed extensive evidence of management negligence. The mine operators had received over 50 documented warnings about health and safety violations in the months leading up to the explosion. These warnings, which ranged from issues with methane detection systems to inadequate ventilation, were repeatedly ignored by the company.
The inquiry characterized the disaster as “foreseeable and preventable,” indicating that the explosion was not an accident but rather the result of systemic failures in workplace safety oversight. The management’s pursuit of profit led them to prioritize production over safety, exposing workers to significant risks.
In the aftermath, the lack of criminal accountability for the mine’s executives sparked outrage. While laws have since been introduced to hold corporations more accountable for workplace deaths, such as the Westray Law, the disaster underscored the challenges in enforcing safety standards and bringing negligent corporate actors to justice.
Explain Deterrence (general & specific) (short answer #5)
Deterrence is one of the more important features of our criminal justice system. It is a vital feature needed while considering policy and law creation to ensure they are balanced and more importantly; effective. Deterrence simply relates to the purpose of law and the criminal justice system to create a ‘threat system’ (ie; the threat of legal punishment should deter lawbreakers through fear) related to the emotional domain that you should be scaring people so they won’t be breaking the law.
One of the main assumptions that it assumes that an offender is a simply cold-calculating rational being who simply weighs the costs and benefits of criminal acts before deciding on a course of action. We know that people are not simply like machines they do not always consider cost and benefit in decisions there are multiple different things involved when one is in decision-making, such as historical context regarding their emotions, so it is not always as simple. If you assume that crime is rational, then what will follow is that crime can be controlled by convincing current and potential offenders that crime is a poor one, and it will not lead to rewards, but rather pain, hardship, and deprivation. This is punctuated by the philosophical idea of Jeremy Bentham who was a utilitarian thinker, the ideas are very much present animating criminal justice policies. There are 2 main types of deterrence: General and Specific. The main goal of general deterrence is to make potential criminals fear the consequences of crime, by using emotional value to create a fear of the legal system through policies such as mandatory minimum sentences, aggressive policing, use of cameras (CCTV), and capital punishment. On the other hand, specific deterrence’s main goal is to punish known criminals so that they will not repeat their offences or (recidivate. The idea is to have legal sanctions harsh enough so they will fear breaking the law again. Some policies that are commonly used include: Harsh prison sentences, large fines, capital punishment, and mandatory minimum sentences. Deterrences were part of the ‘get tough on crime’ movement, and this was thus accelerated by the federal Conservative governemnt in the contemporary period from 2006-2015 and what they did was that expanded the number of offences on conviction that require mandatory minimum sentences. (EX: Use of a firearm during the commission of an offence would have a minimum sentence of 1 year for the first conviction, and then 3 years for subsequent offences. And both would be consecutive to the sentences to the other offence or the original offence itself. For example, 2nd conviction for impaired driving, and 1st and 2nd-degree murder to have a mandatory minimum. One of the more prominent examples of deterrence is the use of red light cameras. It is a general deterrence that aims to prevent people from commiting an offence, and can also be used to stop people from repeating the offence. The logic of the red light camera is very simple, just deter by instilling fear in potential and prior offenders utilizing a specific and general policy. Another exmaple from the textbook is the cases of Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones.
From the textbook: Mr. Smith was a Quebec police chief and swimming coach who was convicted of four counts of sexual assault for fondling two girls aged 12 and 13. Mr. Jones, a computer engineer in British Columbia, was convicted of sexual assault for fondling his young stepdaughter over a two-year period. The cases of Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones— neither of whom had a prior criminal record—were widely publicized in their respective communities, and both men eventually lost their jobs.
Mr. Smith was sentenced to two years less a day in a provincial correctional facility. The Crown appealed the sentence on the grounds that it was too lenient. But the Appeal Court upheld the sentence, in part because Mr. Smith had been fired from his job as police chief and so had already experienced a severe sanction. Mr. Jones was not so fortunate. He was sentenced to 18 months’ confinement in a provincial correctional facility and six years in prison and sent to a federal correctional facility. In explaining the sentence, the presiding judge cited the objectives of denunciation and general and specific deterrence.
UTILITARIAN GOALS Utilitarian sentencing goals focus on the future conduct of Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones, and others who might commit similar offences. These goals focus on protecting the public from future crimes in the following ways:
by discouraging potential Mr. Smiths and Mr. Joneses from crime (general deterrence);
by discouraging Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones from doing it again (specific deterrence);
I guess just say how the two types of deterrence can be used with the example from the textbook.
General deterrence refers to the goal of discouraging the wider public from committing crimes by showing the consequences that offenders like Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones face. By publicizing their convictions, the legal system hopes that others who might consider committing similar offenses (e.g., sexual assault) will think twice due to the fear of punishment and social stigma.
Example for General Deterrence:
The publicization of Mr. Smith’s and Mr. Jones’s convictions sends a message to the community that individuals who commit sexual assault will face serious consequences. This might deter others from engaging in similar crimes out of fear of being caught and punished in a similar way.
2. Specific Deterrence:
Specific deterrence aims to prevent the individual offenders from committing further crimes. The idea is that through punishment, rehabilitation, or other measures, the criminal justice system can discourage Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones from re-offending.
Example for Specific Deterrence:
Sentencing Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones to prison time, probation, mandatory counseling, or treatment programs for sexual offenders is intended to make them less likely to commit the same crime again. The goal is to directly address the risk posed by these two offenders through measures that reduce their likelihood of re-offending.
Explain Mandatory Minimum Sentences (short answer #6)
Mandatory minimum sentences (MMS) are laws that require judges to impose a minimum punishment for certain crimes, regardless of the circumstances. These sentences have sparked significant debate in Canada’s criminal justice system. Some people argue that MMS deter crime and create consistent punishments, while others believe they lead to unfair results, increase costs, and delay court proceedings. Supporters of MMS argue that these laws prevent crime by making sure offenders face tough consequences. They also believe MMS helps reduce inconsistency in sentencing, ensuring that similar crimes receive similar punishments. On the other hand, opponents of MMS argue that these sentences do not effectively reduce crime. Studies show that harsher penalties don’t always lead to lower crime rates. Critics also argue that MMS limits judges’ ability to consider important details, like the offender’s background or the specifics of the crime. This can lead to unfair and harsh sentences. Additionally, MMS can make people more likely to plead not guilty, knowing that the sentence won’t change whether they go to trial or not. This increases the number of trials, delays cases, and raises costs. One of the biggest problems with MMS is how they slow down the justice system. Since the penalty is the same whether someone pleads guilty or is convicted after trial, there is less incentive for people to admit guilt. This leads to more trials and takes up more court time. For example, in impaired driving cases, defendants with no criminal record may decide to go to trial to avoid the mandatory minimum sentence, even if they are guilty. This adds to the backlog in courts, especially in busy places like the Ontario Court of Justice.
MMS also prevent judges from taking into account the unique circumstances of each case. For example, they cannot consider factors like the offender’s past behavior or the specifics of the crime. This means that some people may receive harsher sentences than they deserve, which goes against the idea of fair justice.
An Example would be In one case, R.V. Smickle, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that a 3-year mandatory minimum sentence for gun possession was “cruel and unusual punishment.” Some MMS have been struck down in court, including by the Supreme Court of Canada, due to concerns about fairness. In 2021, Bill C-5 was introduced to remove 20 mandatory minimum sentences, including those for drug offenses and some crimes in the Criminal Code. This bill aimed to reduce the overrepresentation of Indigenous and racialized people in the justice system. However, it only repealed a small number of the mandatory minimums, and many still remain in place.
Senator Kim Pate also introduced a bill that would give judges more discretion when sentencing, allowing them to depart from mandatory sentences in certain cases. This would provide more flexibility and ensure fairer sentences. Legal experts continue to urge Parliament to make further reforms to reduce the use of MMS in Canada.
Explain Financial Corporate Crime (short answer #7)
Financial corporate crime involves illegal activities conducted by corporations that result in economic harm. These crimes include stock market fraud, dishonest accounting, misleading advertising, and price-fixing. Unlike street crimes, which tend to have direct and immediate physical harm, financial corporate crimes are often more difficult to detect and can have far-reaching economic consequences.
One notable example of financial corporate crime is the Bre-X fraud, where investors lost $6 billion. This sum is higher than the total value of all robberies in Canadian history combined. Such crimes reflect the sheer scale of financial harm that corporate misconduct can cause. In this case, Bre-X was a Canadian mining company involved in one of the most notorious corporate frauds of the 1990s, where it falsely claimed gold reserves in Indonesia, leading to massive losses for investors when the fraud was exposed.
There is two types of financial corporate crime
Financial corporate crimes are significant because they often go undetected for long periods, and the perpetrators, unlike individuals involved in street crime, often escape immediate consequences, even as their actions have a profound economic impact on individuals and society. For instance, stock market fraud can manipulate stock prices through false information, causing widespread financial damage to investors and destabilizing financial markets.
(From reading) The 2008 global financial crisis happened because major banks and insurance companies created and traded risky financial products called mortgage-backed securities. These were based on home loans, many of which were given to low-income people in communities like Hispanic and African-American neighborhoods. When home prices dropped, many people couldn’t afford their mortgages and lost their homes. However, the banks and companies that made and sold these risky loans were not held responsible for the damage caused. The crisis led to many people losing jobs, homes, and businesses, but those who caused it largely escaped accountability.
In this sense, financial corporate crime is often far-reaching and, as Snider points out, it can cause both physical and economic harm. While the direct impact may not be as immediately visible as physical harm, the economic damage caused by financial corporate crimes can affect entire communities, destabilizing economies and increasing inequality. Financial corporate crimes like those in the 2008 crisis reveal the difficulties of holding corporations accountable and the broader societal consequences when companies act recklessly for profit without regard for the harm caused to individuals and the economy.
Explain solitary Confinement (short answer #8)
Solitary confinement, or segregation, is a correctional management strategy in which inmates are isolated in a cell for 23 hours per day. This practice is often used for inmates who are considered to be a threat to themselves, others, or the overall safety and security of the facility. Segregation is used as a punitive measure or for protective reasons, depending on the situation. It is primarily categorized into two types: disciplinary segregation and administrative segregation, both of which are outlined in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Disciplinary Segregation occurs when an inmate violates institutional rules. The inmate is isolated as punishment for their actions, which could range from fighting with other prisoners to more serious offenses like attempting an escape. The aim is to impose a consequence for the rule violation while removing the individual from the general population for a specified period.
Administrative Segregation is used when an inmate is considered a threat to the safety and security of the facility or other inmates. This form of segregation is often used when an inmate’s behavior or the nature of their crime (such as being a sex offender) makes them vulnerable to attack from other prisoners, or when their presence in the general population poses a serious threat of violence.
The use of solitary confinement has been heavily debated, particularly regarding its ethical implications and the impact on mental health. In 2017, Canada made changes to the use of solitary confinement through the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. These changes, which were implemented in 2019, included a shift in terminology from “solitary confinement” to Structured Intervention Units (SIUs). This shift aimed to better address the concerns around the overuse of solitary confinement and its potential harm to inmates.
The new regulations prohibit the use of segregation cells for vulnerable inmates, such as those with mental health issues, youth, and women. The aim is to ensure that individuals who are at heightened risk of harm or deterioration from isolation are not subjected to such measures. However, Section 34 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act still provides exceptions, allowing for the continued use of segregation in certain cases, such as when the inmate poses an extreme threat to the safety of others or the institution.
Despite these changes, concerns about the use of segregation persist. Critics argue that prolonged isolation can have detrimental effects on an inmate’s mental health, potentially leading to depression, anxiety, and self-harm. Studies have shown that extended periods in solitary confinement can cause long-term psychological harm, especially when the individual is kept isolated for months or years without sufficient mental health support.
Example from Reading:
An example from the reading illustrates the potential consequences of segregation when used in response to institutional violence. In 1972, a major riot occurred at Archambault Prison, located north of Montreal, where 50 inmates were identified as actively participating in the riot. However, between 75 and 150 other inmates were sent to solitary confinement for “participating passively” in the riot. This incident highlights the often controversial nature of the use of solitary confinement. In this case, inmates who were not directly involved in the violence were punished with solitary confinement, which they described as an unjust and harsh punishment. Complaints about the treatment of these inmates reached federal politicians, but despite the controversy, no federal inquiry was conducted. The prison guards involved denied the allegations, and there was insufficient evidence to support the claims. This case underscores the potential for abuse in the use of solitary confinement and the lack of accountability and transparency in certain correctional facilities.
Explain why punishment focused on the body and public shaming (whippings, public executions, scolds bridle, etc.) shifted to institutions (bridewells, workhouses, picking oakum, etc.) to manage ‘problem populations.’ Why does Foucault state that this shift is not more humane? [note: in your answer, be sure to provide details about some of the punishments, ex., scolds bridle and its relationship to patriarchy].
(Long Answer #1)
In the past, punishments were focused on a person’s body.
These punishments were gruesome and harsh and often were used for crimes we today wouldn’t even consider a crime or wouldn’t consider to be a serious crime.
Some punishments varied from public hanging, whipping, and scolds bridles. There were many different crimes a person could commit to get these punishments during the early 18th century.
Example: The Scolds bridal, which was a head cage that was put on women who spoke back against men. This cage had a mouthpiece with a nail that would stab the tongue as the woman’s book. Often the husbands of these women would parade them around town to be publicly shamed
Relationship to Patriarchy: Women who were deemed “unruly” (e.g., speaking out of turn, challenging men, or being perceived as argumentative) were punished more severely than men. It reinforced women’s position as subordinate and controlled their ability to express themselves in public spaces. Although many people were against these types of punishments and started writing against them during this time.
The shift started during the 17th and 18th centuries, many peasants and rural workers were displaced by changes in land ownership. This process was called enclosure, where land previously used by commoners for farming and grazing was “enclosed” by the wealthy landowners or nobles, making it private property. As a result, many poor rural families found themselves without land to work on and had to migrate to cities in search of work.
This increase in urban poverty caused a strain on city resources, leading to growing fears about the “dangerous poor”. The rise of the working class in cities was seen as a potential threat to social stability. The poor were viewed as a burden, and many people in power feared uprisings or rebellion.
The rise of urban poverty led to the establishment of Bridewells and workhouses. However, the goal behind placing people in these institutions was not about offering genuine welfare or helping people in need, but rather about controlling and reforming the poor. They were put under constant surveillance and regulation of their daily lives.
The idea was that by putting them into these institutions it would teach them to stop begging for money and would let them work.
Many women also started to lead riots and rebellion against the nobles, causing the start of witch hunting, which further oppressed women.
So Foucault believes that the institutions and mental punishments are just as harsh and inhumane as physical punishments
Foucault believes this because the institutions have a surveillance focus. Prisoners are always being watched.
Example: the pan octagon, which is a circular prison with a watchtower in the middle, even with no one present in the watchtower. These prisoners were well behaved because they thought they were always being watched.
This use of surveillance, focal beliefs causes people to lose their free will, and their individuality focal also feels that people are treated worse and various institutions compared to in the past doctors only view patients as organs instead of people, and those who need mental help are locked away in asylums were during the renaissance. Those same people would be viewed as wise and seen in a more positive light. They are free to interact with people and share the differences and how they see the world.
Explain the difference between the religious reformers and utilitarian philosophers’ approach to punishment. How did elements of each approach inform the development of the modern prison?
(Long answer #2)
Christian reformers
Pleaded for the universality of guilt and original sin
Immorality was to be fixed using isolation
Believed that in isolation, immoral offender would repent their sins
Religious reformers: punishing better not punishing less
- john howard (1777) and elizabeth fry (1827)
-believed prisons should be healthy + efficient + religious
-didnt want prisioners mixing or influencing each other
-believed that solitude and isolation would end corruption from other prisoners
Example Video:
John Howard found prisoners half starved and combined together in terrible conditions.
There were many debates on what prisons are meant to achieve
Elizabeth Fry was part of the women’s committee. She wanted to keep the women busy through activities or jobs because she believed if they have nothing better to do they will just commit another crime.
She wanted them to have
constant religious instruction,
Work
Rewards for good behaviour,
and to make prison a place to reform prisoners into good people of society.
- Utilitarian philosophers: universality of reason+hedonism
Aimed to change the offenders taste for pleasure (bc they believed people only committed crime bc they liked it)
prison was aimed to be for close inspection of criminals and provide the right measurement of pain to prevent them from enjoying crime
Example of Utilitarian thinkers: cesare beccaria and jeremy bentham
Idea that crime is a rational activity. People are hedonistic/self-indulgent
Punishment calculated to outweigh the potential advantages of engaging in crime
Tried to provide a just measure of pain
Believed in reforming the individual and improving the society
Reading: Beccaria outlined a utilitarian approach to punishment. He argued that some punishments could never be justified since they were more “evil” than any potential good they could ever do.
Becarria categorized as “evil” were torture and the use of ex post facto laws (i.e., laws passed after someone had committed a crime; the offender was then punished for actions that had not been illegal at the time). One of his strongest arguments was that punishments should be swift, since that would achieve the greatest amount of deterrence. Also, he argued that punishments should not be overly severe.
Bentham (another Utilitarian) drew up the plans for the first prison. Known as the “panopticon”, it was designed to put utilitarianism into practice by reforming offenders. A significant feature of the panopticon was its design: the plans called for a circular structure with a glass roof and a window in each cell. This would make it easy for the staff, who were located in a circular room in the centre of the building, to observe (or “surveil”) each cell and its occupant. Solid walls separated each cell from the others, ensuring that the offenders, who were housed one to a cell, could not talk to one another. No panopticon was ever built, apparently because Bentham insisted that they be built near large urban centres in order to achieve the maximum amount of deterrence.
Define environmental corporate crime, and referring to the Lac Megantic railway disaster, discuss its negative impacts and why it was difficult for the government to prevent these harms and sanction the responsible parties.
(Long answer #3)
Environmental Racism:
Indigenous and Black communities are often disproportionately exposed to harmful environmental conditions, such as toxic waste or polluted air, often because these areas are treated as “dumping grounds.”
For example, in Nova Scotia, indigenous people and Black communities are more likely to be exposed to harmful waste, which is a form of environmental racism. This issue needs stronger policies to protect these vulnerable communities from harm.
Environmental corporate crime involves unlawful or negligent actions by corporations that harm individuals, ecosystems, or public health. These acts often stem from deliberate cost-cutting, regulatory violations, or a failure to enforce environmental laws. Examples include toxic waste dumping, oil spills, and industrial emissions. These crimes are complex due to overlapping jurisdictions, transnational implications, and the inherent challenge of quantifying harm. For instance, environmental racism often disproportionately exposes marginalized communities to hazardous conditions, such as waste dumps near Indigenous and Black communities(Week 9)(Snider. L - Criminal Co…). Despite being as harmful, if not more so, than other criminal acts, environmental corporate crimes are often treated as regulatory rather than criminal issues, allowing corporations to avoid meaningful accountability(Snider. L - Criminal Co…).
: The Lac-Mégantic Railway Disaster and Its Impacts
The Lac-Mégantic railway disaster of July 6, 2013, exemplifies the devastating consequences of environmental corporate crime. A train carrying 72 tankers of crude oil derailed and exploded, killing 47 people and obliterating the downtown area of Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. Investigations revealed gross negligence by the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway (MMA), including inadequate brake systems, minimal crew staffing, and poor maintenance protocols(Week 9)(Snider. L - Criminal Co…).The disaster caused not only immediate human and infrastructural loss but also long-term ecological damage. The oil spill contaminated local water and soil, requiring years of remediation. Additionally, it disrupted the livelihoods of residents, creating economic instability and deep psychological scars. The tragedy underscores how corporate negligence, coupled with regulatory failures, can have catastrophic effects(Week 9)(Snider. L - Criminal Co…).
Governments face significant hurdles in preventing environmental corporate crime and sanctioning responsible entities. First, corporate lobbying and economic influence often undermine regulatory enforcement. In Lac-Mégantic, Transport Canada’s lax oversight and approval of unsafe one-person train crews highlighted regulatory failures exacerbated by budget cuts and political pressure(Week 9)(Snider. L - Criminal Co…). Corporations often shield their executives through structural mechanisms like limited liability, making it difficult to attribute criminal intent or impose personal accountability. In this case, three junior employees were scapegoated, while MMA executives and key governmental enablers evaded charges(Week 9)(Snider. L - Criminal Co…). These types of environmental crimes typically involve intricate harm dynamics that unfold over time, complicating the legal process. Governments may lack resources for thorough investigations, while companies exploit delays to deflect blame. The Lac-Mégantic incident illustrated this with protracted legal battles and insufficient penalties for the corporations involved(Week 9)(Snider. L - Criminal Co…).
Explain how court delays and underfunding of legal aid have negatively impacted the
ability for many people to access the criminal justice system (Long answer #4)
Court delays and the underfunding of legal aid have created significant barriers to justice in Canada, particularly for marginalized populations, by exacerbating systemic inequities and undermining the core principles of fairness and accessibility within the criminal justice system.
One of the primary effects of these delays is the inability of the system to process cases efficiently, which is highlighted as a systemic issue in Jacques Gallant’s article on underfunding legal aid. For example, a 2016 Toronto case involved a judge halting a trial because the accused, earning $16,000 annually, was denied legal aid due to income thresholds far below the poverty line. This reflects how Legal Aid Ontario’s thresholds fail to align with the realities of modern living costs, particularly in urban areas like the Greater Toronto Area. These thresholds leave many low-income individuals without representation, forcing them to represent themselves in court—a process that is time-consuming and complex for defendants unfamiliar with legal procedures(ProQuestDocuments-2024-…).
From the perspective provided in the CRM 100 notes, the lack of representation impacts procedural fairness, a critical concept in the criminal justice system. Self-represented individuals often do not understand legal principles like actus reus (the guilty act) or mens rea (the guilty mind), which are essential for presenting a defense or challenging charges. Additionally, unrepresented defendants cannot easily navigate pre-trial procedures, such as disclosure of evidence or motions to dismiss. Judges and Crown attorneys must then spend more time explaining processes to these individuals, further clogging an already overburdened system(_CRM 100 Notes (1)).
The underfunding of legal aid also reveals deeper systemic inequities. As discussed in Canadian Criminal Justice: A Primer, systemic racism and discrimination are pervasive in Canadian justice. For example, Indigenous and racialized populations often face overrepresentation in criminal proceedings. Without access to legal aid, these communities are disproportionately affected, as they are more likely to encounter the justice system and less likely to afford private legal counsel. This amplifies existing disparities, creating a cycle of disadvantage(Canadian Criminal Justi…).
Furthermore, delays and underfunding undermine the principles of restorative justice, which emphasize repairing harm and rehabilitating offenders rather than punitive measures. Without timely trials or access to adequate defense, restorative approaches become secondary to procedural backlog, reducing the justice system’s ability to serve as a mechanism for societal healing(Canadian Criminal Justi…)(_CRM 100 Notes (1)).
An additional concept to consider is the social construction of crime, as outlined in CRM 100 lectures. Delays and underfunding perpetuate a view of the justice system as inaccessible and biased, reinforcing the public perception that certain groups—such as the working poor or marginalized populations—are disproportionately criminalized. This undermines public confidence in the justice system, a key element for its legitimacy and effectiveness.
Finally, court delays and underfunding negatively impact victims of crime, as lengthy trials can exacerbate trauma by delaying closure. This is particularly relevant in cases of sexual assault, a crime often underreported due to societal stigma. Victims seeking justice may find the process prolonged and retraumatizing, diminishing their willingness to report crimes in the future, as emphasized in CRM 100 discussions about the “dark figure of crime”(_CRM 100 Notes (1)).
In conclusion, court delays and underfunding of legal aid do more than hinder the efficiency of the justice system; they exacerbate systemic inequalities, deny marginalized populations fair representation, and weaken public confidence in the rule of law. Addressing these issues requires increasing legal aid funding, re-evaluating eligibility thresholds, and prioritizing systemic reform to ensure equal access to justice for all.
