For the many reasons why people commit crime in Canada, society has but relatively few ways of punishing such wrong doings, and of reforming convicted felons/persons from committing wrongful acts again.
Does Canada have a problem with youth and drugs, adults and drugs as well as everyday criminals? Do we have adequate space for those who are incarcerated? Is it wise to double-bunk those who are jailed? Is it wise to send to prison young offenders with those who are hardened criminals? Should we have private for-profit prisons instead of, or in addition to, publicly administered correctional facilities?
Some of the above questions/queries will be discussed below. Yes, those who are found guilty of crime must answer to society.
What is the impact upon the average prisoner upon sentencing? I would question as to whether or not incarceration for many of those guilty of petty crimes is completely effective. Do we require more jail accommodation for those who are incarnated? It is debatable the building of more penitentiaries is feasible only if crime is on the upswing. The cost to the public can be in the billions of dollars to expand the prison system. Along with the initial construction of prison complexes, it is necessary to engage the services of many more corrections officers and administrators, along with support staff for medical, cooking, maintenance operations and cleaning. (The last function is a chore which, in my opinion, inmates should perform). This all culminates in an expensive endeavour.
Research has proven that 70 per cent of crimes occur when there is substance abuse or the perpetrator(s) is/are intoxicated. The effects suffered by a family when one or other of the parents is imprisoned are devastating. If small children witness and see atrocities unfolding in the home (or even away from the home) by one or other of the parents, it often has a devastating effect that can have a detrimental ramification on their lives forever. Moreover, the fact that parent may be compelled to leave home for any length of time may cause those children distress which may stay with them for life. Older children may witness where the parent(s) have erred, and feel this is now a way of life and end up following along in the same path.
If the contention is correct the intelligence quota of many criminals is not overly high, then theoretically confinement is supposedly the answer as those individuals possibly never will be an asset to society. Being incarcerated becomes a way of life for many habitual criminals.
Are Canada’s youth laws harsh? In 1984, when the government of the day promoted what appeared to be new stringent justice laws regarding youth, the public support was not impressive. Imprisonment for youth offenders climbed until about 1990. Punishment of Canadian youth did not show consistent increase from 1991 to 2003. The more serious youth offenders had their cases transferred to adult court. In 1997 the federal government entered into discussions with the provincial and territory governments with the goal of shifting resources away from custodial institutions, which had proved to be expensive and largely ineffective in reducing reoccurring criminal activity and into community based services in support of children and families. The federal government realized imprisonment of large numbers of youth for minor offences imposed many more serious problems and consequences. Legislation was introduced in 2003 designed to reduce the use of custody. Possibly because of the way the new laws are written, Canada has not become more punitive toward youth offenders.
Are we providing better correctional and education facilities for those young offenders with the aim of rehabilitating them back into society as much better balanced citizens? It would be extremely unwise to house young offenders with older or habitual criminals for the obvious reason of possibly being led astray further, or introduced to drugs if the youth is not already involved with them. It is my humble opinion to double-bunk inmates is one of the worst mistakes the jail system could impose. The reasons I would submit are evident.
Do we need more prisons? It appears this is a highly contentious issue. I feel more stringent rules for prisoners would obtain better results whereby many would be rehabilitated sooner. Rather than have those in jail languish in their cells, for example, they should be required to take more responsibility and work for their “room and board”. Possibly, as in many years gone by jails could operate whereby those incarcerated are required to work with the results they could gauge whether they could become an asset to society, rather than committing more criminal acts when released from imprisonment.
Do I believe in corporal punishment? Yes I do. Perhaps if some convicts received the lashes, they would not be so keen on committing acts which ruin or possibly destroy the lives of others. It may be surprising to learn what such treatment could do for many as well as making others who might be contemplating crime realize what could happen to them if they do not live within the rules of society.
Longer incarceration (other than life sentence which I feel should be served to the full term) may not be necessary, if there was harsher treatment while imprisoned. The focus would be on rehabilitating the criminals so when they leave prison, their outlook on life and how to act toward their fellow citizens would be improved considerably.
Rather than more prisons, I feel that we need more rehabilitating centres whereby old and young may be reintegrated back into society to lead more useful and purposeful lives.
Somehow Hannibal’s law still has merit — an eye for an eye, an ear for an ear.
