A flawed Compass: a human Rights Analysis of the Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety

An Implied Alternative

The Panel suggests that the abolition of statutory release could in some way be achieved without sacrificing the availability post-release supervision.

There was common agreement that if statutory release was eliminated, conditional release options would have to continue to support the benefits of gradual release to the community. Particular concern was expressed about the impact of releases directly from penitentiaries of offenders who had reached their warrant expiry dates, meaning they would not be under the supervision of CSC in the community.

The Panel follows this declaration with a quote from one of the authors, Graham Stewart, which was presented as a reason to retain statutory release but used in the Roadmap to imply endorsement of post-warrant supervision – a complete distortion of his position.

The Panel goes on to conclude that:

As a consequence, the Panel believes that a review is required of how community-based interventions would be retooled to meet changing requirements for supervision and service delivery, while appropriate measures are taken to prepare the offender for the warrant expiry.

We are left to wonder what “retooling” would mean in the context of forcing a person to submit to supervision and possibly imprisonment – after the sentence had completely expired. Further we are mystified as to why the Panel would presume to impose on free people a measure that it had just proposed abolishing on the basis that is was not effective.

10. Conclusion

In 1969 the Ouimet Committee acknowledged that conditional release was no longer based on clemency. It was not something that was given on the basis of desert, but rather on the basis of risk. We introduced statutory release – not because prisoners deserve it but because the community needs it to maximize the potential for successful reintegration without subsequent new offenses.

The CCRA stipulates that the grant of parole is determined, independently of CSC, by the National Parole Board on the basis of the risk the individual presents to the community – not on whether they think he deserves to be released because of completion of the correctional plan. Many people are low risk whether they complete their correctional plan or not. Conversely, others continue to be viewed as high risk even after completion of all aspects of their correctional plan. The principle of “least restrictive measures”, when considered in combination with the first principle of public safety, requires that the Board focus entirely on risk – not desert.

Risk is not a one-sided calculation. The risk of release under supervision is balanced against the risk associated with release to the street without supervision or support. This balance cannot be addressed thoughtfully by relying on notions of “earned” parole. Misusing statistics to create exaggerated fears while ignoring the mass of contrary evidence mocks serious public policy development.

To abolish statutory release and accelerated parole review would have profound but unexplored implications for the terms and costs of imprisonment. The Panel’s recommended approach contradicts the Panel’s own support for conditional release and undermines, rather than strengthens, public safety.

9. Education, Employment and Human Rights

   1. Introduction

Before addressing the Panel’s proposals for prison work and education, it is worthwhile stating why we think these subjects have relevance to our human rights analysis of the Panel’s recommendations. After all, surely useful prison work and education programs are positive initiatives that require no further justification.

I

57. Imprisonment and other measures which result in cutting off an offender from the outside world are afflictive by the very fact of taking from the person the right of self-determination by depriving him of his liberty. Therefore the prison system shall not, except as incidental to justifiable segregation or the maintenance of discipline, aggravate the suffering inherent in such a situation.
f human rights are premised on respect for human dignity, the provision of opportunities for people to advance their capacity to live constructively in free society is not only consistent with but essential to that respect. Respect for such needs is reflected in the United Nations Standards for the Treatment of prisoners (see inserts).²⁴²

We may put a person in prison as punishment, but when we do so we also bring them into our care. Imprisonment by its nature makes people vulnerable. Prisoners have no substantial control over their most basic needs such as the quality or sufficiency of their shelter, food or medical care and there is little that they can do to protect themselves from the threat of harm from others. A prison system that ignores such fundamental needs is disrespectful of the human dignity of the individual and in doing so violates the person’s human rights.

W
58. The purpose and justification of a sentence of imprisonment or a similar measure deprivative of liberty is ultimately to protect society against crime. This end can only be achieved if the period of imprisonment is used to ensure, so far as possible, that upon his return to society the offender is not only willing but able to lead a law-abiding and self-supporting life.
hile basic needs relating to food, shelter and safety are necessary to survive, they are not sufficient for a meaningful life. Human beings cannot live for long in isolation even when their basic survival needs are met. Elsewhere in this paper we discuss the impact of segregation on individuals and its ability to drive a person to death or insanity or both. Segregation deprives prisoners of two necessities of life – social interaction and self actualization. Our humanity is only experienced in relation to others. Relationships define who we are and our place in this world. Without interaction with others, friendship, love, self esteem, respect and generosity cannot be received or given.

Self actualization relates to being able to grow and develop through learning, creating and producing. It involves opportunities to make choices about one’s future. Removing these opportunities is an assault to one’s humanity. Having a person in our care means that we must take steps to ensure that their human needs are met beyond those that relate only to physical survival.

I
59. To this end, the institution should utilize all the remedial, educational, moral, spiritual and other forces and forms of assistance which are appropriate and available, and should seek to apply them according to the individual treatment needs of the prisoners.
f the punishment is intended only to limit one’s freedom – not to allow the person to starve or be killed, to go insane or lose their family ties, then prisons must ensure that the potential for these unintended consequences are minimized. Hence the law provides that decisions affecting prisoners use the least restrictive means. The law also obligates prison officials to make available those aspects of social life that we consider necessary for human development.

Education in the community is both free and mandatory for children up to age 16. Medical care is provided to all. Welfare meets basic needs for food and shelter and police services are intended to protect us all from harm. We consider those and other related services to be fundamental to a society in which we can thrive. Providing such services to us all reflects our collective respect for our human dignity as individuals. Those same standards of service must, logically, also apply in our care for prisoners. To do less degrades their humanity, their human dignity and their human rights. It also jeopardizes the successful reintegration of the individual into the community.

Consistently applying community service standards to prisoners is both difficult and costly. The costs alone challenge us to use imprisonment only to the degree that is absolutely necessary. We try to achieve this minimal use of imprisonment through sentencing principles and through release mechanisms that allow people to complete their prison sentence in the community.

M

60. (1) The regime of the institution should seek to minimize any differences between prison life and life at liberty which tend to lessen the responsibility of the prisoners or the respect due to their dignity as human beings.
ost would agree that prison work programs, education and gradual release are central to good corrections. However, the three initiatives do not operate in isolation: education improves the person’s prospects for meaningful work and both education and work skills improve the person’s prospect for gradual release. Work and education are more than just pastimes intended to keep prisoners occupied. As such the quality and feasibility of the work and education programs is crucial if prisons are to do more than simply detain. Recognizing that work and education programs can vary substantially in quality and impact, we must consider the following questions when examining current and proposed approaches to work and education programs:

• 
  Do the work and education programs change for the better the person’s ability to reintegrate into society?
  
• 
  Do the programs improve the person’s prospects for being released on parole?
  
• 
  Are resources used to their greatest effect with these programs?
  

The importance of the relationship between work, education and successful reintegration are not lost on the Panel. They acknowledge that their proposals to abolish accelerated parole review and statutory release would have very substantial implications for expansion of prison populations unless the education and work outcomes are substantially enhanced from their current levels and prove to be effective both in terms of recidivism and in terms of the Parole Board being to release the person under community supervision.

A sharp increase in the prison population threatens the correctional abilities of the entire system. When populations increase suddenly, overcrowding is the inevitable result as it takes years to build and prepare a new prison. Overcrowding is more than double bunking cells – problematic as this is, Overcrowding makes access to programs, counselling and visits more difficult. Staff and prisoners know each other less well and become more suspicious of the other. Simple solutions for brewing conflicts such as moving a prisoner from one range to another are unavailable. Prisoners are seen as more threatening and increased pressure is created to asses them as dangerous thereby requiring higher levels of control and security. This apprehension, along with the inability to access programs, makes it more difficult for prisoners to obtain parole – thereby adding further to their frustration and the population size. Overcrowding begets more overcrowding. In this context work and education become more difficult to provide as staff, space and prison movement become increasingly restricted. The system can quickly grow out of control and will increasingly be forced to rely on static control measure to maintain security. Development programs intended to attain successful integration into both the prison and community go by the wayside.

Good and effective work and education programs are essential but will the programs proposed by the Panel be sufficient to compensate for the problems being created by their other proposals for statutory release and parole? If not, the conditions of prisons will degrade quickly, costs will rise sharply and those being released will be less likely to be successful - all at the expense of the community in both dollars and victimization and to the prisoner in lost years of freedom.

Wasting lives through ineffective corrections is inhumane when other ways of achieving effective corrections are known. Policy that would presume to set a transformation agenda for corrections would be expected to draw on that knowledge through extensive reference to research and best practices. The human rights of prisoners cannot be respected if they are used as guinea pigs in an ideological experiment. Anything less than a plan well grounded in evidence risks a major step backwards in the care of those dependent on us for their rehabilitation and an unacceptable disservice to the public that rightfully expects that their safety will be enhanced through effective corrections.

As we will document, the Panel would have CSC embark on a set of work related initiatives that are costly, unresearched and likely unrealizable. Yet the Panel not only would subordinate existing education initiatives to its flawed work strategy but pays scant regard to an education strategy that is cost effective, reflects community standards, is realistic, well researched and consistent with the core values of human rights.

2.