December 10, 2012
Today, Smart Justice Network offers a special reflection on human rights, our strength of character, our “measure of living virtue,” and the shadow side of the use of incarceration and punishment in our society. Though lengthy together, the three authors represent the best our human spirit can offer in the face of a very highly charged public issue where compassion may take a distant second place to punishment. SJN commends their thoughts to your consideration since there can be no doubt that, lacking the guidance of genuine compassion, human rights issues are becoming more and more a focus of our criminal justice approach.
First, Catherine Latimer, Executive Director of John Howard Canada –
Some of you may have watched CBC’s Doc Zone, Tales from Kingston Pen (http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episode/tales-from-the-kingston-penn.html ) The short journey through the history of that facility made me thankful for all who have worked to make prisons more just and humane places and comforted to think that progress has been made and continues to be possible. Prison conditions, particularly in the some remand facilities and provincial facilities, urgently need improvement. The recent article in the Occupational Health and Safety journal on prison conditions is illustrative of some of those conditions. (http://www.ohscanada.com/news/on-the-brink/1001898929)
When I read the article about the inmates from Saskatchewan Penitentiary suing over conditions and the comments, I realized what a challenge we face. The newspaper articles spend a lot of ink on the offences committed by the litigants implicitly suggesting that they deserve harsh prison conditions (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1298631–convicts-suing-over-uncomfortable-extremes-in-saskatchewan-prison) The tenor of the comments and, I understand, the talk radio coverage reinforces the notion that murderers and rapists can be subjected to inhumane prison conditions because of what they have done.
There are many, who like us, stand for just, effective, and humane justice and corrections but we face real challenges in the court of public opinion. What an offender deserves is a fair process through which he is held accountable for the offence through a sentence that is proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. It is the court that decides on the quantum of the penalty and the type of sentence through which it will be discharged. It is for the prisons and correctional officials to carry out that sentence (in a manner that will better prepare the prisoner for resisting crime when returned to the community). People are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment. While correctional authorities across the country are under stress owing to increasing numbers of prisoners, reducing resources, often new legislative frameworks and sweeping structural changes, their obligation is to provide safe, secure, and humane prisons. This becomes increasingly difficult with the excessive vilification of prisoners and many legislative reforms that serve to pile on penalties above those imposed by the courts. Perhaps it is one of the few remaining vulnerable groups against whom it is still socially acceptable to incite harm.
We have a challenge in the courts of public opinion, but the courts of law are different. Common law traditions and Charter-entrenched rights protect against public panics and prejudices and insist that the rule of law be applied to all, even prisoners, and that the rights of all are guaranteed. It is not surprising that inmate complaints are reaching the courts. Some may be testing some fundamental Charter rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and principles of fundamental justice. Often prisoners are successful in the suits they launch – a BC prisoner recently succeeded in his application for a judicial review of the CSC grievance process. It is often difficult for prisoners to get access to the legal assistance they need. Fighting through the courts, however, is surely preferable to allowing frustrations to fester within the prison walls. I have written to the litigants in the Saskatchewan Penitentiary to let them know that we are interested in the conditions they face and share an interest in just, effective, and humane prison conditions.
It takes courage to seek justice and humane conditions for people who are often disliked and feared. We know that not only is it the right thing to do but that injustice and inhumanity within our prisons will not be effective in preparing people for a safe return to our communities. We face some challenges but I am awed by the strength and commitment of our people. We perhaps find resolve by remembering the many who have fought for these values in the name of John Howard and of the improvements we have made. Our journey continues. (SJN Emphasis)
Now Graham Stewart retired after a lifetime of service to John Howard and its clients –
I just read Catherine’s great message and it inspired me to come out of the shadows and add my two bits worth –because of the importance of Catherine’s message and because I would like to encourage others to engage in some discussion here.
I was around in the late 60’s with JHS and had the opportunity to get to know some of the great JHS leaders from the first half of the last century. They really were pioneers – amazingly strong intellectually and morally. They took on resistance that was far greater than what we face today and they did it through the great depression and world war. We do owe them a great deal but we also need to recognize that progress is not a one-way street. Over the last decade or so we have been regressing seriously and so there is the need all the more to be willing to be active and push back the dark cloud that has been forming. Reform is a movement, not just an idea or set or values and so we must all be actively part of that movement. Catherine and a few others can’t be a movement without the rest of us being actively involved with her.
While we talk a lot about what treatment /punishment prisoners “deserve” we also need to remember that the criminal justice system must reflect what we deserve as well. Do we not deserve a system that is fair, respectful of our humanity and human rights, predictable rather than arbitrary in its decision making and restrained in its use of force and pain? The notion that in a democracy we authorize some of us to carry guns, investigate, enforce and punish the rest of us is one in which we lose some freedoms as the price for some degree of public safety. But that process becomes a threat to our safety when those authorized to use such coercion exceed what is necessary. Police may not use more force than necessary, courts may sentence no more severely or deprive us of freedom more than necessary and correctional authorities may not deprive people of their rights and freedoms more than what is necessary to carry out the sentence. At all levels of the system the agents of the state must justify the degree of force, coercion or deprivation imposed. How could it be any other way? Surely there is an implicit trust that in a safe society we can only delegate power to a few so long as we trust that they will not use that power more than is absolutely necessary. Those with the greatest responsibility to act as the safeguard against the excessive use of power are our politicians, one would think. Increasingly today they are abandoning that role. If there was any doubt about that abandonment, watching the Justice Committee in the House and the Senate would remove those doubts.
The use of mandatory minimum sentences, arbitrary abolition of forms of conditional release, detention without determining individual responsibility for an offence (i.e., the new Immigration Act), abolition of pardons, prohibiting food at prison events even when the prisoners pay for it, exorbitant charges for telephone call from prison, refusal to allow computers, double bunking and so on all reflect to varying degrees the infliction of pain beyond that which is necessary to achieve legitimate criminal justice goals. And these types of measures are all we hear about. Each of these and other measures reflects only the anger of those who demand them. It means that the rest of us are susceptible to additional punishment – not in proportion to what we have done, but in proportion to the intolerance of those with power.
All of this to say that we need and deserve a just, human and effective criminal justice system for reasons that go far beyond the punishment debate. Our advocacy is not just about offenders, although we obviously have a need and obligation to help them return to society, but is also about the potential for those entrusted with power to abuse that trust and in so doing undermine the balance that gives rise to our notions of personal safety in a democracy. (SJN emphasis)
Third, Winston Churchill in a speech to the British House of Commons, July 1910 –
The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country. A calm and dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused against the State, and even of convicted criminals against the State, a constant heart searching by all charged with the duty of punishment, a desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment, tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerating processes, and an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man – these are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals, mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it. (SJN emphasis – thanks to John Rimore of JHS Sudbury for the Churchill quote.)