|
The tragic slaying of Toronto teen Jordan
Manners at the hands of two 17-year-olds has renewed
public outcry against violent crime in our schools and
communities. Politicians from various levels of government
engaged in a rancorous round of finger pointing, demanding
everything from gun control to prison-like security
measures in schools. This case also reignited vocal
disdain for the Canadian youth justice system. Few have
stood up to talk about why families matter in this debate.
It’s not gun control legislation or politicians
who curb crime. The families in which kids are raised
matter as well.
The Youth Criminal Justice Act, which
was adopted federally in 2003 to legislate justice for
kids aged 12 to 17, has been the target of criticism
ever since it was enacted. Writing in the Winnipeg Sun,
Lorrie Goldstein recently called the YCJA a ‘farce,’
protecting the identities of the guilty and handing
out slaps on the wrist [1] – yet this should come
as no surprise. It was the intent of the legislation
not to use sentencing as a deterrent. It’s hard
to ignore Goldstein’s criticism when considering
the one-day jail sentence followed by 15 months of supervision
handed to a 15-year-old Winnipeg teen in 2003 for beating
a man to death. [2] Last summer two 16-year-olds led
London Ontario police on a wild car chase, undeterred
by their combined 430 previous encounters with the law.
[3]
A family affair
While the YCJA has obvious shortcomings,
it’s Canadian family culture that falls short in
preventing youth crime. The YCJA preamble reads,
“[C]ommunities, families, parents and others concerned
with the development of young persons should…take
reasonable steps to prevent youth crime by addressing
its underlying causes…” [4] The burden of
youth crime prevention rests not only on legislation
but on families and parents supported by the community.
Studies indicate that unhealthy family
situations do contribute to the root causes of youth
crime. Likewise, strong families are one of the best
deterrents of crime. Family dysfunction, poor parenting
practices, neglect, and father absenteeism can lead
to antisocial behaviour and increase a child’s
risk of offending. [5] Studies have suggested that the
presence of a father plays a vital role in the life
of a child. A longitudinal nationally representative
study found that children of absent fathers were at
a significant increased risk for incarceration before
the age of 30. [6] That’s why Temple University
child psychologist Laurence Steinberg argues, “Any
attempt to reduce youth violence…must include a
systematic effort to improve the home environments of…children
and adolescents and, in particular, to engage…parents
in the business of parenting.” [7] This does not
excuse youth of the responsibility of their actions,
but families have an important role in shaping the values
of their children.
Steinberg suggests family-friendly policies
and programs to promote parental effectiveness, parental
education and prenatal care. He also argues additional
benefits to families are derived from programs addressing
mental health, substance abuse recovery and the reduction
of poverty. [8] A study by Dr. David Olds, professor
of pediatrics, psychiatry and preventative medicine
at the University of Colorado, found that when single
low-income mothers were visited by public health nurses
throughout pregnancy and the first two years after birth,
their children were less likely to be arrested, convicted
or violate probation and were less likely to participate
in risk behaviours such as drugs and alcohol consumption.
[9]
Canadian youth justice in retrospect
Parliamentarians at the dawn of the
twentieth century realized that imprisoning youth with
adult convicts was likely to entrench young people in
a life of crime rather than deter them. The Juvenile
Delinquent Act of 1908 referred young people to detention
homes and centres but sidestepped due process of law,
eliminating initiatives such as the appeals process.
[10] The 1983 Young Offenders Act corrected the ‘punishment
without process’ nature of the JDA, by attempting
to balance legal process with welfare provisions. [11]
Lacking clear principles, the YOA produced sentencing
disparities, even between similar cases. When the government
proposed the YCJA, it was billed as ‘get tough’
legislation that would restore a purposed and principled
framework for youth justice. [12] Diverting cases away
from custody and focusing on rehabilitation, the YCJA
has weathered similar criticism levelled against the
YOA, especially with the prevalence of gangs and violent
crime in urban centres.
The YCJA was not intended to be a stand
alone preventative measure. That responsibility also
falls on the parents, family and community in which
Jordan’s killers failed to develop into responsible
and honourable young men. If action is demanded from
the government on youth crime, it should be for policies
and programs that support the development of strong
and vibrant families.
Cultural change
Perhaps still stung by his time in prison,
one time Watergate hatchet-man turned prison reformer,
Charles Colson remarked a few short years after his
release that deterrence is best achieved through cultural
change [13]. American black activist and founder of
the National Ten Point Leadership Foundation, Reverend
Eugene Rivers would agree. He argues that active fathers
are needed to combat the ‘globalization of the
thug life.’ [14] Reflecting on Toronto’s youth
violence Rivers called on black churches to engage the
cultural and practical dimensions of gang-related violence.
[15] Community institutions like churches can support
cultural change by strengthening families who challenge
the culture of violence. The Manners’ murder signals
a need for cultural change that youth justice legislation,
gun control and security measures alone cannot provide.
The mechanism of cultural change is established on the
foundational building block of society – strong,
healthy and vibrant families supported by community
initiatives and bolstered by family-friendly public
policy.
[1] Goldstein, L. (2007, May 30) Youth
crime law is a farce. The Winnipeg Sun. 8.
[2] Matthews, G. (2006, June 23) Take
off the kid gloves, Vic. The Ottawa Sun. 13.
[3] Kirwin, S. (2006, August 17) 430
times later, youths in trouble. The London Free Press.
A.1.
[4] Youth Criminal Justice Act (2002)
retrieved May 31, 2007 from http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/yj/repository/downlds/60100000.pdf
[5] Sprott, J.B. and Doob, A.N. (1998)
Who are the most violent ten and eleven year olds? An
introduction to future delinquency. Ottawa: Applied
Research Branch Strategic Policy Human Resources Development
Canada. 7. Retrieved June 1, 2007 from http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/sdc/pkrf/publications/research/1998-002361/w-98-29.pdf
Ralph, A. and Sanders, M.R. (2004, August)
The ‘teen triple P’ positive parenting program:
A preliminary evaluation. Trends and Issues in Crime
and Criminal Justice. Canberra: Australian Institute
of Criminology. 1.
[6] Harper, C. and McLanahan, S. (2004)
Father absence and youth incarceration.
San Francisco: Center for Research on
Child Wellbeing.
[7] Laurence Steinberg as quoted by
Doob, A.N. and Cesaroni, C. (2004) Responding to youth
crime in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
264.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Olds et al as reported by Doob and
Cesaroni, 262-63.
[10] Doob and Cesaroni, 190-92.
[11] Ibid, 192-98.
[12] Ibid, 22-23, 224-227.
[13] Colson, C.W. (1979) Life Sentence.
Lincoln: Chosen Books Publishing. 217. Considering the
failure of the prison system to reform criminals, Colson
offers a brief historical reflection on cultural change
initiated by churchmen and revivalists.
[14] Rivers, E. (2005, December 2) The
sins of the fathers are visited on black youth. The
Globe and Mail. A23.
[15] Ibid.
|
