14 October 2008
22 Sep
While pretty much the entire country can agree that there needs to be some amendments, I can’t say Harper’s direction is the one we should take. I understand where he’s coming from, and the emotions that drive these amendments, but I simply cannot agree with them.
I believe in rehabilitative justice. Not the kind of rehabilitative justice that allows Karla Homolka to walk out of prison with a free university education, but the kind that would prepare prisoners for release and put them on a program to literally pay back their debt to society by working off some or all of the money spent on their imprisonment.
So, I disagree with Harper’s view that harsher penalities will deter crime. This is often used to advocate the death sentence, and as we can see with the United States, it simply doesn’t work that way. Violent criminals either act on compulsion, so they don’t think about the sentences, or they act with deliberation to avoid being caught, in which case they can obviously rationalize their need to be violent is greater than the risk of whatever punishment could be brought upon them.
But this is not new. I’ve always disagreed with views like this and I expected it to come up this election. Harsher penalties for violent crimes is always a hot button election issue. What I didn’t expect was amending the part of the YCJA that protects the identities of minor offenders.
I’m sorry, but if you are tried as a minor and sentenced as a minor, shouldn’t you be protected as a minor? If the crime is serious enough that you are tried as an adult and found guilty, then treat them like an adult and expose their name. But we can’t give judges the right to expose minors who are tried and sentenced as minors, no matter what the crime, especially for offenders as young as 14.
“In this new legislation, the main purpose will be not only to rehabilitate young offenders, but also to protect society, and the primary goal of sentencing will be to deter others from violating the law,†Harper said at an event.
Protecting the name and record of young offenders is a part of rehabilitation. It allows those who are successfully rehabilitated (and, like everything else, it is easiest to do this at a young age) to move on with their lives. This proposal appears to include no other amendments that actually concern rehabilitation of young offenders. I find that incredibly concerning.

Conservative Party
Liberal Party
New Democratic Party
Bloc Québécois
Green Party
Christian Heritage
Progressive Canadian
Marijuana Party
Marxist-Leninist Party
Canadian Action Party
Communist Party
Libertarian Party
First Peoples Party
Western Block Party
Animal Alliance Party
neorhino.ca
7 Responses for "This is what you call ‘rehabilitation’?"
I know someone who worked in the system trying to ‘rehabilitate’ young offenders and they felt that the whole system is a joke. Most of these kids go right back out to re-offend again and again.
Moreover, many kids often get used by gangs who know the rules and know that these kids will have their records expunged later. So why shouldn’t we publish their names if we see them dragged before the courts a few too many times?
Other countries with much lower crime rates are much more severe towards young offenders. So although I’d prefer to see a much more comprehensive approach towards reforming our youth crime laws I’ll take what I can get. I mean, heck, the Tories could barely get a bill through that lowered the age of consent.
That’s why I would like to see more on rehabilitation. It’s always talked about how important it is, and nothing more is instituted.
If a kid is being used by a gang that’s more of a reason to protect their name to me. If they can get out of the gang without their name being released, then they have a shot. If they are re-offending to the point where they can be tried as an adult, then try them as an adult and release their name if they are guilty. I’m most worried that particular standards weren’t really proposed. It looked like too much room for interpretation for me, and that it could easily be abused when the emotions of victims and their families come into play.
I just feel that we shouldn’t give up. If we have the chance to rehabilitate, then we should try. We shouldn’t just throw out harsher penalties because we haven’t gotten it right yet.
I agree with the rehabilitation system where prisoners work off the money spent on their imprisonment. Why should good tax paying citizens be taxed for the imprisonment of law breakers and not see any of that money back in some form? For example the young man in Didsbury Alberta who drug a dog into a garage with a ten foot tow rope and killed it by asphyxiation should get 3 years of volunteer services for a local S.P.C.A. instead of two years probation, completion of 240 hours community service, a house arrest order for three months, and dictated to “stay away” from animals. I think the sentence that was given was not reasonable, because this young man could spend his community service in a retirement home where he wouldn’t have to be reminded of his awful actions.
Much of our system right now is geared towards trying to rehabilitate these kids and there is almost nothing aimed at ‘punishment’.
But alright, lets assume the most hopeful scenario. That is, that you can somehow reform these kids (doubtful IMO) and get them away from the gangs. They’ll just find someone else to repeat the process.
By leaving such a ‘loophole’ (if you want to call it that) in the system gangs will simply continue to take advantage of it successfully. If we started toughening up the youth justice system and maybe made their stay in the system less of a game and more like boot camp would it work? I don’t know. Perhaps kids would think twice? Or are they too young to reason that much at all?
Its what even the socialist party in France recommended. That is, they recommended that the army be used to drill young offenders. (if I remember correctly)
Isn’t the punishment their loss of freedom?
I understand your concern though, it’s mine as well. I would like to focus on rehabilitation so we don’t miss opportunities for it. But the arguments against it are definitely compelling.
I just don’t think a 14 year old who committed a crime, for whatever reason, should have their name released. I think it seriously hinders the possibility of rehabilitation. The idea of boot camps are to teach self-discipline, so boot camps are just a different kind of rehabilitation. And it works for some people, like the set up we have now works for some people. But I worry about the intense resentment it could create.
I’m definitely interested in this proposal the French socialist party recommended. Do you have a link or more information by any chance?
Test
Amanda:
Perhaps many youths don’t deserve to have their names sullied, but shouldn’t that be an issue a judge can decide. (Gosh listen to me, I’m arguing that judges should be trusted to make wise decisions.. something must be wrong with me) Under certain circumstances I can see it being in the public interest to know and only those close to the case could know for sure.
Because there is a balance that needs to be made between the needs of the criminal to have an opportunity to be rehabilitated and the need for society to be safe and aware. Remember that these are criminals we are talking about not victims.
I know this is going to be low but think about the case where four guys, two over 18 and two under 18 went cruising to find a girl to rape and kill. They found a 13 year old girl in Edmonton, took her, raped her repeatedly and killed her.
I can’t post links here so please google it if you are interested. And then tell me that the 16 year old and 17 year old deserve to have their identities protected and their records expunged when they become 18.
Or the sad case of Serena Nicotine who murdered her young offender group home leader when she was the tender age of 15. She was in the home because she had murdered someone before… and the group home leader wasn’t told anything. Again, google it.
There always must be a balance between the need to protect society and the desire of criminals to be rehabilitated.
As for the proposal in France, it was by Segolene Royal and its available at many places online including the wikipedia entry on the 2007 French Presidential election, although it only links to an article in French. I have a good memory for these things so I remember seeing it in a Globe and Mail or National Post once. But I can’t find it right now.
Leave a reply below or start a thread in the discussion forums
Note: Sometimes people try to portray more support for their candidate or their perspective in the comments section by posing as different people. If you attempt to do this, we will delete all of your comments.Update: despite the above warning, people are attempting to use multiple aliases, so we are now moderating all comments to check against possible abuses. We apologize for this inconvenience, however we will work to get comments posted as soon as possible.