The quest for reforms in Canadian prisons is treacherous owing to many legal, institutional, and people challenges. Inmates in Canadian prisons come from all backgrounds, with some having been diagnosed with mental problems. One aspect that is of concern to the management of prisons is the wellbeing of inmates in relation to individual and collective security. Realizing the goals requires the development and implementation of both static and dynamic security. Advocates of reforms in the Canadian prison systems contend that reforms targeting static and dynamic security in prisons ought to introduce a balance between security and dignity for inmates. The ideology behind the concepts is to strengthen institutions in the criminal justice system and build the capacity to handle torture and inmate abuse. The goal is to ensure dignity in detention, which is considered a fundamental right. Another ideology relates to security in detention, a significant concern for inmates and staff. Also, integration of the concepts seeks to establish the legality, necessity, and proportionality of the respective measures. Segregation of inmates with mental cases has exposed static and dynamic security parameters to criticism owing to the execution of confinement as a control mechanism.
The Correctional Service Canada (2013) highlighted the Commissioner’s Directive on dynamic security and supervision in Canadian prisons, which is a requirement in the Correctional and Conditional Release Act. The purpose of the ideology is to improve safety in prison environments through staff presence, social interactions, and appropriate interventions, including static features. However, these measures face an onslaught from the legal realm of reforms in the Canadian correctional institutions. A recent study by Webster (2019) revealed that a spate of rulings by the Canadian judicial system that has dramatically reversed the rules in support of confinement of people with mental illness in Canadian prisons. A sixth ruling censured confinement of such inmates in the populous Canadian providence of Ontario. Webster appears to insinuate that justification of the abolishment of solitary confinement for the mentally ill is linked to the fact that the country’s federal prisons have approximately 250 psychologists and 45 psychiatrists. These professionals are perceived as capable of complementing the dynamic paradigm of prison security by providing competent care to inmates with mental problems. However, the assertion, like the prior judicial rulings, attracts significant controversy.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Webster (2019) observes that it is imperative to examine the concept of confinement in the country’s prisons. In an article that portrayed the practice as normative in Canadian prisons, Kelsall (2014) observed that at any given day, at least 850 inmates are in solitary confinement in the country’s prisons. They represent over 5% of Canada’s population in federal prisons. The isolation may run up to four months, and the majority of the victims are young people with mental problems. As a result, questions have been asked about whether the practice is justified or amounts to torture. Such is the concept that makes the legal reforms to term the practice as contentious.
The controversy revolves around the rights of prisoners. Dynamic and static security measures have been criticized along with similar discourses. Activists claim that every prison institution must strive to uphold the conditions that guarantee inmates their rights. However, the practice is common in Canadian prisons, with inmates serving up to 24 hours a day in solitary confinement. Labeled as ‘administrative segregation’ in prison jargon, the practice is intended to ensure the safety and security of mentally ill inmates and other prisoners. Inmates with mental problems are more likely to engage in disruptive behaviors.
Inmate misconduct is a recipe for the chaos that affects other inmates, correctional staff, and the institution. The l evel of misconduct may be of significance to the prison management and local authorities as it may reflect the presence or absence of security within the facility. The risks above lead to consideration of several security measures that are appropriate for different groups of inmates. The institutions have the autonomy to ensure the maintenance of good order through security, safety, and discipline measures, and solitary confinement of the mentally ill is a standard procedure. The prominence of risk factors would require the institution to increase its dynamic and static security features.
However, justification of the judicial rulings to censure the practice stems from the observed adverse effects of the legal reforms in the Canadian criminal justice system. One can argue that the six judicial decisions highlighted by Webster (2019) sought to reverse the negative reforms instituted at the start of the last decade. Cook and Roesch (2012) noted that the reforms in the Canadian criminal justice system encouraged the development of policies that would increase the number of people imprisoned and increase in the time of incarceration. Referred to as ‘tough on crime,’ the policies appear to be in contravention of the calls to decongest prisons and improve prison conditions in conformity with human rights regulations. Simpson et al. (2013) expressed similar concerns by observing that the reforms in the country’s correctional institutions were likely to increase the number of inmates, raising challenges in dealing with those with mental problems. Given the existing structure of prisons, the mentally ill would be exposed to cruel treatment.
Judicial decisions to overrule the practice conform with the recommendations of health experts. According to Kelsall (2014), solitary confinement of the mentally ill has potential adverse health effects. The effects may emerge a few days after segregation and may be exacerbated with continued confinement. The most common effects seen among inmates in confinement are depression, anxiety, and aggression. It is also contended that social separation in prison creates difficulties in perception as individuals experience difficulties separating reality from personal thoughts, developments that may lead to paranoia and psychosis. In addition to worsening mental states, inmates in solitary confinement may also experience negative effects on their physical health. Therefore, segregation contravenes the essence of maintaining human dignity in prisons because it violates the rights of inmates to fair and just treatment.
The controversial judicial decisions call for the examination of the issue of solitary confinement for the mentally ill from a new lens. There is a need to integrate dynamic and static safety and security features because they are a mainstay in prisons in the country. The best approach to security is an integrated approach. It is evident that static and dynamic security influence one another. The strategies and features of the two forms of security overlap, which in some instances, makes it difficult to perform one without the other. For instance, features of static security such as surveillance, lockdowns, control sections, and perimeters can only function if the staff to manage them are available. On the other hand, such staff should be conversant with the dynamics of the prison facility and its inmates. Therefore, institutions should emphasize both aspects of security to provide inmates with a conducive environment. Nevertheless, focus on the dynamic element through positive professional and personal relationships can be useful in the rehabilitation of inmates and facilitate reintegration into the community.
In conclusion, the controversial judicial decisions to censure the practice of solitary confinement of inmates who are mentally ill are justified. The security and safety concerns of the prisons’ management do not outweigh the right of inmates with mental problems to their rights. Prisons should advance the correctional element without creating additional problems for inmates. The practice of solitary confinement contravenes this ideology; hence, its abolishment is justified. However, it is important to relook into prison reforms to develop security and safety measures that ensure the peaceful co-existence of inmates with different conditions without resulting in segregation.
References
Cook, A. N., & Roesch, R. (2012). “Tough on crime” reforms: What psychology has to say about the recent and proposed justice policy in Canada? Canadian Psychology/psychologie Canadienne , 53 (3), 217.
Correctional Service Canada. (2013). The commissioner’s directive- dynamic security supervision. The Government of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/acts-and-regulations/560-cd-eng.shtml
Kelsall, D. (2014). Cruel and usual punishment: solitary confinement in Canadian prisons. CMAJ, 186 (18): 1345. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.141419
Simpson, A. I., McMaster, J. J., & Cohen, S. N. (2013). Challenges for Canada in meeting the needs of persons with serious mental illness in prison. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online , 41 (4), 501-509.
Webster, P. (2019). Canadian prisons face new legal challenges over mental health. The Lancet Psychiatry , 6 (7), 567-569. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30228-7
