Commissioner's Speeches Archives

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND THE MEDIA

PANEL: An Overview of the Criminal Justice System

Remarks by:

Lucie McClung
Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada

Memramcook Institute
September 5, 2002
Dorchester, New Brunswick


Check against delivery

---

The Correctional Service of Canada administers sentences imposed by the courts. Offenders serving sentences of two years or more go to federal institutions, and those serving less than two years, generally speaking — except in New Brunswick where we have a special arrangement — fall under the jurisdiction of provinces and territories.

But it is not so simple, and let me give you a sense of why it is not so simple. By legislation, the Correctional Service of Canada contributes to the protection of society by actively assisting and encouraging offenders to become law-abiding citizens, while exercising reasonable, safe, secure and humane control. And because of the evolution of practices from police forces, through the courts, and in sentencing guidelines, federal institutions do not receive first-time non-violent offenders. When you look at the history of federal offenders, more than 85 percent have had previous youth or adult sentences, 19 percent have diagnosed psychiatric problems, etc.

So the evolution in other components of the criminal justice system means that the population that receives sentences of two years or more has basically failed virtually all social and, often, other criminal justice systems in their past.

We operate 53 institutions, 71 parole offices, and have some 250 contractual arrangements with community organizations to do community supervision. The Correctional Service of Canada is responsible for the incarceration and supervision phases of the sentence. And, today, 12,700 federal offenders are incarcerated in your federal institutions, and 8,500 are under supervision in your communities.

To give you an idea of our position relative to other countries in the world, Canada's incarceration rate is higher than the rates in most Western European countries, but much lower than that in the United States.

So what happens exactly upon sentence? First, it is an individualized approach. We look at the past, and assess the present situation of the offender, in order to build for the future and to build for the offender's eventual release among us. That is called the intake assessment. We look at, and we talk to, the many sources of information that are available to us. This involves the police investigation and police officers who have been active in, first of all, taking a look at the crime and the implications of that crime. We look at the courts, their proceedings, their judgements and their assessments. We look at family members to see how best to organize for the future. We talk to employers. There are a series of assessments to look at criminological and psychological aspects. We, of course, talk to the offenders themselves, all in order to build what we call a correctional plan, which is a plan to build for the future.

Even in federal institutions, offenders are criminals. They continue to act in criminal ways while they are incarcerated. Our job is to transform them into people who can be reintroduced to their community safely, with supervision, gradually, so that they do not come back. That is the goal. That is why it is complicated. The simplest thing for any correctional organization is to only deal with the period of imprisonment; the toughest part is to deal with the assistance and the transformation.

So all of our activities are geared towards this transformation. And all of our activities are geared towards transformation and eventual release because offenders will eventually be released. That is the tough part.

The correctional plan acts as a yardstick against which the offender's progress can be measured throughout the sentence. We offer a range of criminological programs that are the envy of many other countries worldwide. Our programs are accredited by a panel of international experts. We draw upon the best experts in how to deal with sex offences, how to deal with psychiatric problems, how to deal with substance abuse, how to deal with a combination of many problems, and they go through a rigorous assessment of the contents of the programs and a rigorous assessment of how they are delivered. We are the envy of many correctional organizations worldwide when it comes to how we deal with programming.

Our programs are also assessed for effectiveness. Because our bottom line approach, the ultimate outcome, must be about whether or not our programs reduce the likelihood of re-offending. And, for every program, there is an assessment and we track offenders as to whether or not they re-offend when it counts the most.

Conditional release is an integral part of our rehabilitation efforts. And it certainly is the part that affects the communities most directly. Gradual reintegration does not mean that the sentence is over, it is the opposite. As it is an integral part of the sentence, conditional release implies conditions and measures and it requires the participation of all partners — the police, community organizations, citizens — who are involved in the reintegration process.

Conditional release takes various forms. It varies from a few hours outside the penitentiary in a very structured mode to where the offender meets with the police or the parole officer once a month or at a predetermined frequency. It depends upon the individual's demonstrated capacity to meet the requirements which are normally associated with the citizens of the community.

So what are the results? How are we doing? And could we do better? These are legitimate questions and they have to be answered.

Last year, 91 percent of those under supervision in the community — again, it could have lasted for a few hours or the full 365 days — last year, 91 percent did not commit crimes during their period of supervision. Statistics Canada repeatedly says to us year after year, to you, to Canadians, that offenders under federal supervision — under parole in the community — account for less than 1 percent of crime committed in Canada on a yearly basis. It varies between 0.5 percent in some communities to less than 1 percent in other communities.

Because of these reasons, and in comparing the re-offending rate in other countries and other models, Canada has chosen to keep as its correctional policy one that is focussed on preparing for the future. We are being told: "It is not sufficient for you to imprison, what we want you to do is to transform individuals, through careful use of parole, so that the likelihood of re-offending will be less upon release from the institution." This is the best way that we know how to deal with offenders — and we keep looking worldwide.

In all decision-making, the Correctional Service of Canada's primary consideration is about public safety. And the gradual supervised reintegration of offenders, through experience and through research, has shown to be the best means to safeguard long-term safety and well-being of communities. This is why we do it. This is our contribution to Canada.

But building safe communities is a shared responsibility. It is not sufficient for offenders to be supervised by one parole officer. We need the cooperation of the police, and we have sought and have agreements with police forces across this country, because offenders need a watchful eye. Offenders upon release are fragile. Because of their past, because of the needs that they continue to have, they need to be supervised, they need to be supported and they need to be controlled.

One initiative that has shown much progress is "Circles of Support and Accountability for Offenders". Through this approach, offenders are surrounded by a parole officer and people who are used to dealing with offenders — police officers, sometimes court officers depending upon what the offender presents as difficulties, the National Parole Board, aftercare agencies — but in addition to all of these professionals, we are also seeking citizens to keep a watchful eye on offenders, to keep watch for the first signs of disorganization. And the more we take a crime prevention approach in a supportive and controlling context, the more we will be able to pick up the signs and act upon the first signs of disorganization to avoid the commission of crime. We have close to 40 definite circles of support which do this upon release for selected offenders well beyond the warrant expiry date.

There is this great perception, that the work we do ends at the warrant expiry date. And it is true — in reality, we can "walk away" from offenders once this magic date of warrant expiry occurs. But it is not sufficient. We know that these people present long-standing problems, long-standing and persistent problems. And I would suggest that we need to organize ourselves to make sure that the crime prevention approach is everlasting. It is a tall task. Reintegration will only succeed if we take it as a shared task — shared responsibilities. The first responsibility rests with offenders themselves because they need to be fully involved, and we must insist that they be fully involved, but it takes incredible support in order to make sure that we pick up the first signs and act accordingly.

Many talk about the system being too lenient. And we must respond to this criticism by telling you what is happening, and telling you what the results are, and asking you the question: "Is this sufficient?" And this question was asked and put before parliamentarians. The Corrections and Conditional Release Act, with its balance between control and assistance, and the results of its implementation were discussed, assessed by parliamentarians, and the end result was that they told us: "Continue to do what you are doing and continue to find ways to do it better." And I would like to talk to you about a few things that we will do to add focus on intervention, preparing for the future and on offender responsibility and accountability.

Our infrastructure, the way our operations are structured today, is around four major categories: we have those in maximum-security institutions with a specific regime, we have those in medium-security institutions with a lessening of control, we have those in minimum-security institutions who are getting ready to be reintegrated among you, and we have those under supervision. Those are broad categories. What we find is that, within each category, there are many different types of people whose needs — it would be expected — require different types of institutional routines or institutional regimes. We are moving towards operating regimes. We know enough now to be able to put together routines that integrate counselling, correctional programming and security measures much more precisely than those offered by broad categories. We anticipate that this will allow us to do better by adding more focus on, and by clarifying, expectations towards offenders and expectations towards those who surround offenders.

We are also continuing research in what now seems to be a growing need, and that is psychiatric problems. The effect of substance abuse in the offender population is incredible because right now it affects their ability to think. And it is very difficult to teach them how to become law-abiding citizens when they do not have an ability to think. We are exploring this issue with mental and physical health professionals. And as they seek new ways to deal with substance abuse, we are also seeking new ways to get the offenders' focus and to stop the reliance on substance abuse.

We will also look closely at what needs to be done to make sure that in the month, or two months, before the offender is released on parole, he or she, and the community, have everything that is required in order to ensure success. And that is a tall order. So we will be focussing on what needs to happen in addition to all that happened during the incarceration period, what really needs to happen for the offender but also for those who will be receiving the offender back. Here I am speaking about how to create those relationships, how to get people comfortable, how to look for signs of disorganization so that it may be picked up once a person is supervised in the community.

We are also looking at ways to reinforce our relationships with police forces -- because they have the capacity to do investigations. We are not police investigators. So we need to make sure that any information that is picked up through normal police practices is absolutely shared in a timely fashion before the commission of crime. Look for signs of disorganization and take action. Our focus is prevention.

And we are working with families of offenders to make sure that they are ready as well. And they tell us -- they are comfortable enough to tell us -- that someone is about to get into trouble.

So that is the focus and that is our response to doing better, to continue to do what we are doing, but do it better. And I am sure that you will have questions about that.

Thank you.