Justice

An effective justice system must measure its success mainly on how well it changes harmful behaviour to socially useful behaviour. To do that, we must reduce those techniques which have the side effect of increasing crime. The money saved should be used to fund those organizations which have shown that they are (or can be) successful at dealing with persons with multiple disadvantages.

Saskatchewan needs a criminal justice system that is effective. A system that (step 1) efficiently and accurately identifies those who harm other citizens and (step 2) uses the most effective techniques for reducing the possibility that they may again harm other citizens. Our present methods do not focus on effective measures (step 2); instead, we focus on incarceration to attempt to “frighten” potential offenders. Simply put, that technique, especially in Saskatchewan’s unique circumstances, has been proven to be worse than useless.

To understand, we must examine the effect of incarceration on the possibility that a person, after release, will commit another offence (recidivism). The most thorough study of this can be found at the website of the Canadian Government department that is responsible for step 2 (i.e. reducing the possibility that those convicted of harming others will do it again. Their researchers used a Meta-Analysis of 111 separate, validated and peer-published studies which in turn studied over 400,000 offenders.

The question was, once all variables were removed (i.e. sex, age, race, etc.), what is the difference when similar individuals were sentenced to prison terms or were placed on probation and allowed to live at home.

The clear answer was that the incarcerated person was 3-7% more likely to commit another offence after release than a similar person who remained at home and was dealt with in the community. Indeed, the 7% higher rate of recidivism relates to longer terms of incarceration.

There are many reasons for sending persons to prison (for example, the offender refuses to quit harming others) but the conclusion that we should not rely on incarceration to reduce future crime is inescapable. Incarceration tends to increase, not decrease crime.

This dangerous side effect helps explain why similar countries (democratic, wealthy) have different rates of incarceration which correspond to different crime rates. For example, the U.S. incarcerates several times more people per capita than do Canada, Germany, and Japan, and also has a several times greater rate of murder and other serious crimes per capita than these same countries. Saskatchewan, meanwhile, incarcerates more youth per capita than almost all other democratic, wealthy nations. We are moving towards disaster.

Incarceration uses over 80% (nationally) of the budgets that are allocated to step 2 (reducing future harms). Therefore, if there are more effective techniques for achieving step 2 goals, then it makes sense to reduce money spent on a technique that increases crime (incarceration) and use that same money on crime reduction techniques.

It is useful to ask – who is incarcerated in Saskatchewan? If we look at youth we see that incarcerated youth tend to be very different from youth who are never incarcerated.

The most obvious difference is the number and seriousness of the problems the incarcerated youth inherit. They are far behind their peers in school (95%), which is noticeble by the age of 12 or 13, by which point they are roughly between 1 and 3 years behind peers. Functional illiteracy is common (as it is in adult jails). They likely have a disability (80%), some less serious (i.e. some learning disabilities), some more profound like A.D.D. and F.A.S. They likely come from families in poverty (90%). About 50% have had social services as their parent for at least some of their lives. About 50% have a psychological or psychiatric disorder, generally untreated. Over 80% are of minority race, the vast majority Aboriginal. They are 3 times more likely to be depressed, and far more likely to be suicidal.

Research (especially from health, education and youth-oriented community groups) shows that these young people can be worked with. Indeed, since these mentioned organizations have as one of their goals encouraging youth to achieve their potential, they tend to transform these youth into successful citizens. Saskatchewan is fortunate to have many examples, ranging from art education to conflict resolution, from employment education to canoeing with cops, from money management to drama. The more that young people with many disadvantages are shown how to enjoy the process that leads to success, the less they commit crimes. Unfortunately, these organizations are starved for funds in Saskatchewan, so their impact is not as great as it might be.

An effective justice system must measure its success mainly on how well it changes harmful behaviour to social usefulness (step 2). To do that we must reduce those techniques which have the side effect of increasing crime. The money saved should be used to fund those organizations which have shown that they are (or can be) successful at dealing with persons with multiple disadvantages.

We need to aim for effective measures and rely less on trying to frighten
the marginalized to transform our justice system into a powerful force for good.

The parallels between justice and health are readily apparent. The same issues that cause one to be ill—poverty, lack of employment, poor education, nutrition or housing—are those that predict one’s likelihood of incarceration. It stands to reason, then, that if we invest in people’s health and well-being, we will also be investing in crime prevention and the safety of all citizens. Finding creative ways to build a health society will help us to keep people out of the justice system and keep our streets safe at the same time.