Fall 2010

Accountability. That’s why I’m writing this post. If I write out my intentions, I’ll feel bad for not following through. This makes me accountable to myself.

The fall semester is beginning soon. I have three courses:

1. SOCI 2445 with Darryl Davies: Criminology
2. CHEM 1001 with Bob Burke: General Chemistry I (my first ever CUTV course)
3. BIOL 1103 with Michael Weber: Foundations of Biology I
4. CRCJ 3002: Qualitative Methods in Criminology with Nicolas Carrier
5. PSYC 2001: Introduction to Research Methods in Psychology with Heather Poole

Based on my last three summer courses, I’ve found that what worked for me was:

1. Writing notes from the lectures beforehand: I can’t do this with Criminology but for the other two, assuming the lecture notes are provided, this should be easy. It sets me up for writing in class notes better. I can write supporting facts rather than copying what’s already been provided.
   • Update December 2010: funnily enough, with three classes and 30 hours of work, this never happened. Not once. Once I realized that I had missed writing too many weeks of notes, there was never enough time to go back and make up for it. Discipline, discipline, discipline.
2. Reviewing the notes directly after class: sometimes this means doing it when I get home at 9:30pm and haven’t eaten all day because I go from work to class and I haven’t planned my meals for the day (thank you turkey sandwiches!) But it definitely helped me review and rework the material into my brain.
   • Update December 2010: luckily, I managed to do this a few times. Not often enough, for sure, but it helped. I think this may have been the only reason I was able to stay on top of Criminology (having not read the book).

And the things that I want to start doing:

1. Writing review questions during/after the lecture: what better way to quiz myself later than to write up questions that I can see being asked based on fresh knowledge?
2. Reviewing my notes once a week: probably the hardest, least likely but most beneficial habit I could potentially develop.

Update December 2010: neither of the above happened. I’m always so hopeful. Perhaps Winter 2010 will be better.

It rained on Sunday

Update Aug 22: everything is up-to-date. Enjoy!

Update Aug 21: everything is up-to-date except L10 (Mentally Disordered Offenders). Enjoy!

And this is why I can’t have nice things.

Notes coming soon (tomorrow).

Exam Review for PSYC 3402

Contents

1. Serial Killers
2. Sex offenders
3. Aboriginal offenders
4. Mentally disordered offenders
5. Female offenders

There is more of a focus on the book this time (as compared to the midterm).

Serial Killers

• Definitions of serial, mass, and spree murder
  • Know what the problems are in defining these crimes
• Characteristics of these crimes and the individuals who commit them
  • Understand the characteristics
• Characteristics of female serial killers (and the general differences between them and male serial killers)
• Serial killer typologies – what are the main criteria? What are the main criteria in the FBIs opinion? What are the statistical approaches (SSA – know how to interpret, what the differences between the points mean)? Holmes and Holmes…

Sex offenders

• Myths and facts about sex offenders (True/False question)
• Types of offences and offenders
  • Child molesters: heterogeneous offences and offenders (fixated-regressed model)
    • Grawth typologies: main differences between offenders, main criteria and how they differ, types of offenders
  • Rapists: Canter types of rapists
• Rates of offending
  • Factors that influence rates
  • Victimization rates
  • Victim, offender, and offence characteristics
• Recidivism rates: understand patterns
  • Factors that influence rates
  • The prediction of recidivism
• Risk factors associated with sex offending (in relation to general offending)
  • Meta-analysis results
  • Specific risk factors and unrelated risk factors
• The effectiveness of treatment
  • What is effective treatment, how to interpret bubble graphs

Aboriginal offenders

• Aboriginal over-representation
  • The extent of the problem (4 reasons – list, describe, evidence related to them; root causes)
  • Patterns of over-representation across Canada
• Reasons for over-representation
  • Related evidence
• Recidivism
• Childhood and adult risk factors (differences between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders)
• Offender needs
• Canada’s response to over-representation
  • Aboriginal specific treatment
    • Legislation
    • Healing lodges (talk about the research)
    • Effectiveness of healing lodges
  • Aboriginal specific courts
    • Gladue court
• Two Major Problems with ending over-representation

Mentally disordered offenders

• Definition of MDOs – what groups are included
• Assessment methods
  • The DSM-IV
• Base rates of diagnoses
  • Understand the general patterns of APD within general community population
• Mental disorder and crime: is there a relationship? Varies over time, disagreement
• Prevalence and co-morbidity
• MDO’s and risk factors
• MDO’s and recidivism
• Problems with psychiatric diagnoses
• Why screen for mental disorders
  • Offender suicide

Female offenders

• Correctional Service of Canada: what’s their mandate, legislation that supports their mandate
• History of women’s incarceration: general knowledge (movies)
• Female offending patterns:
• Profile of female offenders
  • Admission
  • Institutional
• Comparison of female offenders with male offenders
• Treatment issues with female offenders
• Reintegration programs and theories related to programming

PSYC 3402: Female Offenders

Contents

1. 1. Historical Overview
   1. 1.1 Current Research (Ways to Research Females)
2. 2. Classification and Risk Assessment
3. 3. Approaches to Treatment and Management

This post contains information from the book and Dena Derkzen’s lecture.

For more information on what she was talking about, go to CSC’s Women Offender Programs and Issues.

1. Historical Overview

Context:

• Lombroso: his first account of female criminality was sexist and focused heavily on biology and sexuality;
• Future researchers proposed theories that were:
  • Still sexist and focused too much on female sexuality, biology and psychology; and
  • Either explicitly excluded female offenders or implicitly assumed through omission that their theories would generalize to females.
• Currently (since 1975), there has been a surge in research focusing on female offenders attempting to look at female criminality through the perspective of feminism.

Prevalence and Nature of Female-Perpetrated Crime:

• Universal Fact: females commit substantially less crime and in particular, less violent and serious crimes (as compared to males).
• Females are more likely to kill an intimate partner or family member
  • Motivations:
    • When females commit non-familial homicide, their motivations tend to mirror those of males: vindication and/or attempt to restore personal integrity.
    • When females commit familial homicide, they tend to do so in response to domestic violence whereas males appear to be acting out of jealousy, infidelity, desertion and control.
• Females commit property crimes at a rate comparable to males (not as high but close) but their reason for doing so tends to be out of necessity (ex: feed and clothe children) rather than for adventure and status enhancement (as it is with males).

1.1 Current Research (Ways to Research Females)

Qualitative research is where we use words (ex: interview techniques) versus quantitative research, where we use data (ex: statistics). Keep in mind that we should be using both techniques.

1. Feminist Pathways Research: where one-time qualitative interview techniques with incarcerated females or self-identified prostitutes to ascertain pathways to delinquency.
   • Research suggests that aversive family environments push females into the streets where they get involved in prostitution and other coping strategies (ex: drug trafficking, robbery, fraud).
   • Criticisms: doesn’t separate girls from women; primarily researched on American samples and used qualitative techniques; lack of male comparison group; uni-dimensional pathway (criminalized survivor).
2. Integrated Liberation and Economic Marginalization Theory: the women’s liberation movement has perpetuated the belief that females are better off financially (they’re not) and divorce has increased the number of single-headed families; expectations of wealth and status also encourage female to adopt illegitimate means of achieve wealth and power.
   • Research supports the components of this theory but…
   • Criticisms: it doesn’t explain how other individual factors factor in; why don’t all divorced mothers living in poverty resort to crime?; doesn’t identify protective factors that could be used in intervention strategies.
3. PIC-R Theory (Personal, Interpersonal and Community-Reinforcement): read Chapter 3 (in summary, gender is not central to the model).

2. Classification and Risk Assessment

1. Gender-Neutral Risk-Assessment Instruments: instruments that were designed based on research with predominantly male offenders, based on gender-neutral theories of crime but are used with female offenders. Critics say that these instruments tend to be biased because ‘gender-neutral’ often means ‘male’; defenders argue that they happen to work well with both sexes.
   • Meta-analytic research conducted on the LS/CMI (Level of Service/Case Management Inventory) and the YLS/CMI (youth version) suggests that:
     • There hasn’t been much research done on female offenders, and particularly not youths.
     • The average effect size (of predictive validity) was comparable to men (meaning, yes, we can use these instruments with female offenders).
   • Criticisms:
     • Instruments like the LSI-R and the LS/CMI fail to take into account the gendered pathway to crime into account; research confirms that out of three groups (unclassifiable, economically-motivated/male-typical and gender pathway), the LSI-R predicted recidivism for all but the gender pathway group.
     • These instruments also don’t take into account that females tend to have a lower threshold for the impacts of family dysfunction and a higher threshold against the influence of antisocial associates. Furthermore, marriage tends to be protective for men but a risk factor for women.
2. Gender-Informed Risk Instrument: there are currently two types of these instruments developed by Canadians: the YASI-G – Youth Assessment Screen Inventory for Girls; and SPIN – Service Planning Inventory for Women. No indication of predictive validity yet.
   
   The SRSW (Security Reclassification Scale for Women) tends to under-classify women as compared to clinical judgments. Predictive validity was moderately high (0.75)

3. Approaches to Treatment and Management

Correctional Service of Canada: CSC is responsible for administering sentences of a term of two years or more. They provide recommendations, perform risk assessments of offenders; supervising community offenders; etc.

• Legislation – Corrections and Conditional Release Act (1992): here are the major principles they subscribe to…
  • Protection of society
  • Least restrictive measures (to protect society, staff, offenders)
  • Offenders retain rights and privileges (except those that are removed as a consequence of their sentence)
  • Respect ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences and be responsive to the special needs of women and Aboriginal people

Creating Choices: in response to the lack of gender-responsive programs available to women, CSC has identified 5 key principles: empowerment, responsible choices, respect and dignity, supportive environment and shared responsibility. Intervention programs are supposed to be designed to meet the following concepts: a women-centered, holistic approach, with integration between institution and community, a continuum of care, an individual approach and creativity and flexibility.

• CSC has also identified certain factors (non-criminogenic) that are especially salient for females. This includes childcare services, parenting programs, female-only group programs, trauma programming, substance abuse treatment, etc.
• Researchers advocate that treatment programs must address many needs at once and occur in an environment that fosters respect and understanding (from staff and others). However, there is little research examining the effectiveness (of reducing redicivism) when non-criminogenic needs are targeted, but the research we do have is promising (suggesting that pairing substance abuse programs with prenatal care, mental health care and gender-specific programming is most effective).
  Read more on the CSC web site, Principles and Concepts in Women’s Correction.
• Responsivity: research suggests that adhering to responsivity, need and risk principles reduced recidivism at rates comparable to men (20-30% range). Be cautious with these results though because the meta-analytic studies were done on small samples and predominantly with youth offenders (they may not generalize to adult female offenders).

Community Reintegration Study: examined 600 federally sentenced women in the community, which is relatively small but because they are geographically dispersed it presents a challenge to offer services and reporting to parole officer (schedules need to be flexible).

Results:

• Women get more day parole than men;
• 80% of revocations don’t involve a new offence (most revocations occur within the first 3 months of release)
• Within the first two years of release, only 5% return with a new violent offence.
• CSC has designed the Social Integration Program – designed to provide better support for women during the critical period of community reintegration; mental health services too (designed for women with high mental health needs).

Criticisms of the Gender-Neutral Correctional Treatment Model (Responsivity Model):

• Targets individual change but ignores a woman’s ecology, both immediate (family, friends, partner) and distal (societal, political, economical).
• RNR is based on quantitative meta-analytic studies that don’t include the small-scale or qualitative studies.

PSYC 3402: Mentally Disordered Offenders

Contents

1. 1. Mental Disorders and the DSM-IV
   1. 1.1 Prevalence Rates
2. 2. Role of Mental Illness in the Courts
   1. 2.1 Unfit to Stand Trial
   2. 2.2 Criminal Responsibility
3. 3. Link between Mental Illness and Crime and Violence
   1. 3.1 Risk Factors
   2. 3.2 Assessment Methods
   3. 3.3 Treatment

This post contains information from the book.

Watch The New Asylums (PBS/Frontline)

1. Mental Disorders and the DSM-IV

Mentally Disordered Offenders (MDOs): these are people who have come into contact with the criminal justice system and also have a mental disorder; this includes those found unfit to stand trial (UST), not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) and mentally disordered or seriously mentally ill.
DSM-IV: organizes diagnoses into five axes relating to different aspects of disorders.

• The first two axes represent the major mental disorder axes:
  • Axis I – Clinical disorders, such as major depression, substance dependence and schizophrenia; the impact is on affective and reality.
  • Axis II – Personality disorders and mental retardation.
  • Axis III – General medical conditions.
  • Axis IV – Psychosocial and environment problems.
  • Axis V – Global functioning.
• Criticisms: construct validity; reliability of the diagnostic categories and symptoms (Why are certain disorders included? How were the symptoms for each disorder selected?); lacks a strong empirical basis; and too much emphasis placed on the existence of symptoms (which is why when you read it, YOU THINK YOU’RE CRAZY).

Problems with Diagnosing Mental Disorders: mental disorders were developed primarily by the field of psychiatry (DSM) so it may not reflect psychological research, it’s unrelated to causation, there are different classification systems (DSM versus IDC-10), prevalence varies by the model used and Canada and the UK are using severe personality disorder as a criterion for indeterminate sentencing.

1.1 Prevalence Rates

Table 1 – Comparison of the Percentage of Adult Populations versus Criminal Population with Mental Disorders

	Adult Population	Criminal Population
APD	1-3%	74.9%
Paranoid	0.5-2.5%	10-30%
Borderline	2%	10-20%
Major Depressive Disorder Point Prevalence Men and Women	2-9%	15-40%
Psychosis	No data	10.4%
Bipolar (at least once)	0.4-1.6%	7-12%
Schizophrenia	0.2-2%	4.6-7%

Prevalence of Mental Disorders:

• 80% of a prison population (compared to 31% of a community sample) had a mental illness.
• Prisoners are 10 times more likely to have a mental illness.
• Major mental illnesses (Axis I) account for 6.5 to 10% of the population
• Moderate mental illnesses – 15 to 40%
• Diagnosable mental disorders (SA, APD) – over 80%

Prevalence of Personality Disorders: personality disorders are grouped into three clusters: Cluster A – personality disorders involving odd or bizarre behaviour (ex: paranoid); Cluster B – involve dramatic or erratic behaviour (ex: antisocial and borderline); and Cluster C – involve anxious or inhibited behaviour (ex: dependent, OCD).

• Most common types of personality disorders are antisocial, paranoid and borderline (for females and males).

Comorbidity of multiple mental disorders:

• Schizophrenia and bipolar are most likely to be occur with more than 2 other diagnoses.
• Depression, APD, alcohol abuse and drug abuse are most likely to occur with 1-2 other diagnoses.

Comorbidity of mental disorders and crimes:

2. Role of Mental Illness in the Courts

2.1 Unfit to Stand Trial

Unfit to Stand Trial – Section 2 of Criminal Code: where a person is not fit because they...

• • Don’t understand the nature of the proceedings...
  • Don’t understand the consequences of the proceedings...
  • Can’t communicate with counsel...
• Because of a current mental disorder.

The Ontario Review Board must consider:

• The protection of the public
• The accused’s mental state
• The reintegration of the accused into society; and
• The accused’s other needs.

2.2 Criminal Responsibility

Historical Overview:

• N’Naghten Standard (Cognitive): (USA) at the time of the crime, you must suffer from a defect of reason and you must not know the nature of the act or understand that it was wrong.
• NCRMD (Not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder) (R v. Swain):
  • (Canada) not legally responsible while suffering a disorder that renders you incapable of appreciating the nature of the act or incapable of knowing that the act was wrong (similar to M’Naghten Standard)
  • A defendant should only be found NCRMD if they pose a criminal threat to the public; otherwise, they should be granted an absolute discharge.

3. Link between Mental Illness and Crime and Violence

3.1 Risk Factors

Here are some of the major risk factors:

• Active psychosis (currently) but not lifetime diagnosis (such as schizophrenia);
• Prior crimes and violence are a better predictor;
• Substance abuse and APD (antisocial personality disorder) are important comorbid predictors.
• Even though MDOs are at a higher risk of re-offending compared to the general population, compared to the criminal population, they are at a lower risk (it’s all relative!)
  • Schizophrenics: co-occurring substance abuse and acute psychotic symptoms are associated with minor violence; acute positive psychotic symptoms, depressive symptoms, victimization and childhood conduct problems are associated with serious violence; and negative psychotic symptoms are associated with lower risk.
• Majority of people with mental disorders don’t engage in violent behaviour but there is a close parallel between predictors for MDOs and non-MDOs, in terms of demographics, criminal history, deviant lifestyle and clinical diagnosis.
• People with serious mental disorders are more likely to be victims of violence (compared to people with no mental disorder).
• TCOs – Threat/Control Override Symptoms: psychotic symptoms that cause a person to feel threatened or involve the intrusion of thoughts that can override self-controls. (Delusions)
  • Research suggests that patients who endorse these symptoms were more likely to be violent. Other research suggests that hostility, not TCOs, predict violence. Other research also suggests that treat delusions in men were related to violence (not in women and control delusions weren’t related to violence in men or women)
• Hallucinations:
  • Type: Non-violent and self-harm command hallucinations are more likely to be obeyed.
  • Belief: If the person believes the command is justified, they’re more likely to obey.
  • Voice Perception: benevolent (as opposed to malevolent) voices are more likely to be obeyed.
  • Consequences: if the person believes something bad would happen to them or someone else, they’re less likely to obey.

Why should we screen for mental disorders?

• There are high rates of mental disorders in correctional populations.
• Early identification improves treatment response.
• Reduces victimization (of offenders).
• Consistent with the law – we need to provide community standards of care.
• Admission to jail is when the risk for suicide is greatest:
  • Precipitating Events: recent transfer, pressure from offenders, in segregation, and other negative decisions.

3.2 Assessment Methods

1. Interview Based (in order of complexity)
   • Structured Clinical Interview for DSM
   • Diagnostic Interview Schedule (ICD)
   • Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale
   • Referral Decision Scale: sample items...
     • Schizophrenia (4.6%), major depression (39.3%), manic depressive illness, bipolar (12.7%)
2. Questionnaires
   • Beck Scales
   • Computerized Lifestyle Assessment Inventory

3.3 Treatment

Five components of community treatment programs associated with success:

1. Multifaceted, intense and highly structured.
2. Treating clinician accepts the dual role of treating the mental disorder and preventing violence.
3. Treating clinician takes responsibility for ensuring that the patient follows the treatment programs.
4. Treating clinic should re-hospitalize the patient if it’s needed to stabilize acute symptoms or if there’s an elevated risk for violence.
5. Obtain court orders, if necessary, to ensure patients comply with their treatment.

PSYC 3402: Aboriginal Offenders

Contents

1. 1. Aboriginal Overrepresentation
   1. 1.1 Four Major Reasons for Overrepresentation
   2. 1.2 Two Major Root Causes for Overrepresentation
   3. 1.3 Attempts to Reduce Overrepresentation
2. 2. Recidivism and Risk Factors
3. 3. Canada’s Response to Aboriginal Treatment
   1. Healing Lodges
   2. Gladue Courts
4. 4. Will it never end?! – Overrepresentation

This post contains information from the book.

According to the most recent statistics, although Aboriginal people make up about 3% of the general population in Canada, Aboriginal offenders make up approximately 17% of federal prison inmates and currently represent about 12% of all offenders serving time in the community.

And pay particular attention to how “Aboriginal” is defined in the studies you read – it affects their samples.

1. Aboriginal Overrepresentation

Aboriginal Overrepresentation: there is a disproportionate amount of Aboriginal offenders in our prison population (3% of general population compared to 12-20% with community sentences and in provincial/federal prisons).

1.1 Four Major Reasons for Overrepresentation

1. Higher Offending Rates: generally accepted that they do have higher crime rates but we do have to question why (over-policing, police discretion, etc).
2. Tendency to Commit More Violent Crimes: they tend to commit crimes that result in more jail time (higher rates of violent crimes, especially on reserves, and serious sexual assault, as opposed to drug offences).
3. Socio-Economic Disadvantage of Aboriginal People: generally accepted that certain policies put Aboriginal offenders at a disadvantage because of their socio-economic status, such as defaulting on fines (you go to prison if you can’t pay).
4. Discrimination in the Criminal Justice System: there is disagreement for whether or not discrimination occurs…
   • Debate between systematic (system-wide policies and practices that are discriminatory, such as fine defaults or literacy requirements) versus overt (blatant discrimination).
   • There are signs of systematic discrimination, such as over-policing, access to lawyers, and the length of time in pre-trial.
   • Sentences for Aboriginal offenders tend to be shorter than for non-Aboriginal offenders, which suggest the CJS is not discriminatory.

1.2 Two Major Root Causes for Overrepresentation

Though the “reasons” may help to explain how Aboriginals are overrepresented, they don’t explain the real reasons why. Here are two major root causes:

1. Culture Clash: there are differences between Western and Aboriginal views of justice – somewhat addressed by allowing them to self-govern, providing Gladue courts, etc. Certain crimes aren’t considered criminal in their eyes. However, Aboriginal offenders tend to be “Westernized” so this doesn’t support the “Culture Clash” reason.
2. Colonialism: historically speaking, there was an attempt to wipe out the Aboriginal culture, through, for example, residential schooling where many Aboriginal youths were physically and sexually abused.

It’s tough to quantify the amount of impact these root causes have had on Aboriginal people. We have to address the issues of poverty, parenting, and substance abuse!!!

1.3 Attempts to Reduce Overrepresentation

We’ve attempted to reduce overrepresentation by creating First Nations police, appointing them to senior posts in the RCMP and OPP, by creating policies that ensure Aboriginal offenders are able to receive treatment that is culturally appropriate, and allowing them to serve sentences in Aboriginal communities.

2. Recidivism and Risk Factors

It’s generally accepted that Aboriginal offenders recidivate at a higher rate than non-Aboriginal offenders (at least at the federal level; no indication at the provincial level).

Research – Sioui and Thibault: they examined the recidivism rates of technical violations and new offences for offenders released on full or day parole, or statutory release from federal penitentiaries.

• Results: Across the board, more Aboriginals recidivated within 6 months of their release, but Bonta found non-significant differences in re-incarceration rates (after 1 year release) for provincial offenders.

Two Major Categories of Risk Factors:

1. Childhood Risk Factors: these include parental absence, alcohol abuse, behavioural and learning problems, unstable family home, family violence, transfers between foster/group homes… we’re not setting up these kids to do very well. Many suffer from FAS or FAE.
2. Adult Risk Factors: research suggests that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders have the same adult risk factors, which supports the use of the PIC-R, in that it’s culturally independent. That being said, research also shows that including Aboriginal-specific education and employment programs also showed a decrease in recidivism rates.
   • Offender Needs: research suggests that Aboriginal offenders tend to have higher Need ratings (except with respect to antisocial attitudes); because of this, it’s generally assumed that traditional programs won’t be as effective for Aboriginals… we have to provide culturally-relevant programs (ex: spiritual practices, sweat lodges (booyah) and Aboriginal literacy classes).

3. Canada’s Response to Aboriginal Treatment

Canada has responded by providing Aboriginal-specific treatment programs and Aboriginal specific courts.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act – Section 81: this section allows the Aboriginal community to take responsibility for overseeing Aboriginal offenders under certain conditions in order to respect their culture.

Healing Lodges: these lodges offer programs and services that reflect the Aboriginal culture in a space that incorporates their traditions and beliefs (ex: teachings, ceremonies, contact with Elders and nature). Emphasis is placed on community interaction, spiritual leadership and experienced staff members who act as role models. They are managed by either the CSC or the Aboriginal community.

• Effectiveness: there are few studies that examine the effectiveness of these lodges and existing results are mixed. It’s especially important to note that the primary goal for the Aboriginal community is to heal the offender and restore peace and harmony to the community, not reduce re-offending.
  There are three major types of studies (this is important for the exam):
  1. General Impact of Aboriginal Specific Treatment Programs: some research suggests that Aboriginal-specific treatment programs help program completion (thus decreasing recidivism).
     • Traditional healing methods are more effective than non-Aboriginal programs for treating Aboriginal sex offenders.
     • Elder involvement and participation in cultural and spiritual activities is associated with decreases in recidivism.
     • Aboriginal offenders report being more comfortable with Aboriginal staff and they (the staff) are viewed as more trustworthy.
  2. Surveys Focusing on the Views of Offenders: surveys indicate that healing lodges are viewed in a positive light and should reduce recidivism; offenders were more likely to participate in cultural activities at the lodge because the staff was viewed as less judgmental and more attentive than institutional staff. The culturally-specific programs also helped the offenders trust people, stay out of trouble and deal more positively with their problems.
  3. Research that has Examined Recidivism Rates upon Leaving Healing Lodges: actual research suggests that the recidivism rates vary widely across healing lodges and offenders at these lodges are assessed as being higher risk than those in minimum security. Upon release, there were significantly higher amounts of offenders re-admitted to federal facility (as compared to those released from minimum security).

Gladue Courts: these are courts designed specifically for Aboriginal offenders, which were created in response to the overrepresentation of Aboriginal offenders in our justice system, as recognized by Bill C-41. (Bill C-41 basically says that we need to pay particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders when handing out sentences, suggesting that they may receive shorter sentences than non-Aboriginal offenders for the same sentence.)

• Effectiveness: these courts haven’t really helped the Aboriginal issues. The program integrity determines the effectiveness of the program and it’s not always consistent.

4. Will it never end?! – Overrepresentation

In short, the end to Aboriginal overrepresentation is far away. Though we’ve made some attempts to ameliorate the situation, there are two particular factors working against these efforts:

1. Aboriginal Youth Population: the proportion of people that fall into the high-risk age groups (youth Aboriginals) is steadily increasing.
2. Movement into Urban Areas: if this trend continues, we will see more young people living primarily in urban areas. Without providing them the necessary means (education, skills, etc) to survive in an urban environment, they are expected to be increasingly more involved with the CJS.