Calling Empathizers — Be Part Of A Unique Journey!
Publish Your Journal Entry Licensed Under Creative Commons!
4th. Year Students are under pressure, because this is their final semester before graduating in June, 2021…
Final Presentation is in April–May, 2021…next is Graduation…but this is only the start of your journey. Getting out and following your dreams is where the hard work begins; publish your work with PSE Publications. Help is available for those students with a clear concept of Social Anomalies in Society; this begins with a creative hypothesis. Then show your process: Inductive or Deductive; Quantitative or Qualitative or Mixed Methods. Presentation of Social issue/s should include risk and protective factors, involving systemic research and presenting of your ideas!
After your paper is graded (by your professor) you may extend, or change contents to suit your goals; then submit your paper via email to: peopleandsocietye@gmail.com. Your paper will be evaluated one at a time, and you will be advised on any criterion that needs improvement… Finally, if/when you get to this stage, formatting is essential to comply with the current layout; instructions will be forwarded & consultation available.
Most publication companies will charge $3000. U.S. to look at your paper, edit, and publish. This is an enormous challenge for students just starting out, then you loose you copyright access. Our publication contract with PSE Publication will be based on reciprocity — meaning good faith and good will in your actions, volunteer work, and giving back to society!
Opinion Essay for Leiden University!
The International Criminal Court (ICC): Located in Netherlands
In 2020, I got the opportunity to study:
International Law In action — Investigating and Prosecuting International Crimes..
For our final essay, which was totally optional, we were asked to write an opinion piece: supported by empirical evidence.
Opinion Piece: What Can Be Done To Make International Criminal Justice More Effective?
Background of Crime and Punishment: Criminal Justice is practiced nationally and internationally for the purpose of providing crime deterrence. Eighteenth century Positivist Criminologist attributed crime to scientific determinism identifying; biological, psychological and sociological traits for committing crimes. Whilst, philosopher and classical criminologist Cesare Beccaria, proposed that punishment must fit the crime to be an effective deterrent. Similarly, Jeremy Bentham(1), another classical criminologist coined the idea of utilitarianism, as a means of determining the level of pain in response to pleasure received; weighing the greater good for sustaining humanity. Society came up with systems of punishment under the Retributive system, meant to condition behavior, so preventing crime. This was the expectation, however there were no solution for perpetrator/s who believed they are smarter than the system, and therefore would simply not get caught.
Beccaria made reference to law and crime, “No Crime Without Law.” Hence law determines what is a crime based on respective infringement/s. Did you ever think there would come a day when not wearing a face covering would be defined as breaking the law? Or that your restaurant would be classified as non-essential services; where opening your business could be deemed malicious, and you could be fined thousands of dollars? The world has changed, it is not the 18th., century, but the 21st,. century and COVID-19 is a household name.
In the 21st., century, society is realizing that retributive punishment based on the adversarial system of justice, has only accelerated problems with the availability of modern technology. Hence, it is time to also phase out the way punishment is meant to work as deterrence, while preventing recidivism. Simply caging people like animals changes their behavior and not for the better, because social environmental influences designed to be impartial; often fails and such failures have phenomenal impact on humanity. A most alarming example here is World War II (WWII), where the social environment eroded with pillaging and destruction resulting in; genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression. To this day crimes against humanity remain unsolved, whilst those in authority across the globe all say we want peace, but there are continuous threat of war!
Theories Of Crime and Deterrence: By JoY-PSE
Footnotes:
(1) Classical Criminology, (Crime and Criminology – Chapter 4), http://my.ilstu.edu/~jawalsh/Sp13/CJS_201/ch4_choice/Chapter42.html
2
It is about time we work to strengthen the social system of networking at home and globally; for the benefit of everyone. Possibly seeing crime as a handicap in society, and realizing that retribution, or revenge simply keeps us suspended in time. More and more various justice system are considering restorative justice and victim reparation; this is also true with International Criminal Courts.
Having said that: What Can Be Done To Make International Criminal Justice More Effective?
By: JoY-PSE, with a Degree in Social Science & Criminal Justice, Nursing education and experience, as well as many works of Art as an artist working with Oils and Acrylics.
Author References:
Professor / Dr. Carsten Stahn, International Law In action — Investigating and Prosecuting International Crimes, Universiteit Leiden (Online), Coursera, https://www.coursera.org/learn/international-law-in-action-2
Betrand, G. Ramcharan, Preventative Diplomacy At The United Nations, UN Chronicle, https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/preventive-diplomacy-united-nations
Professor / Dr. Dan Plesch, Global Diplomacy The United Nations In The World, SOAS University of London,Coursera, https://www.coursera.org/learn/global-diplomacy-un#instructors
United Nations Umbrella Organizations, FSI Transition Center, https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/207704.pdf
Word Count: 3,952
Keywords/Phrase: United Nations, Rome Statute, International Criminal Courts and Tribunals, War Crimes, Genocide, Restorative Justice, Victim Reparation.
3
Highlights:
- In 1945, following WW II global nations united to form the United Nations in the hopes of avoiding such catastrophic destruction of humanity and human values.
- In the 21st., century nations tend to turn on one another on home soil, leaders and those in authority becomes complacent until it is much too late. Then what follows are mass atrocities on home soil, among communities and so forth. This gave rise to the International Criminal Tribunal of Yugoslavia, International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda, Special Court of Sierra Leone and so forth.
- Within the hierarchy of the United Nations, there are interventions such as; International Criminal Courts (ICC), as well as International Court of Justice (ICJ), used to prosecute perpetrators for injustices against humanity; by ensuring they remain accountable for crimes committed.
- Restorative Justice approach that includes victim reparation are essential tools in the 21st., century; reparation can be more meaningful when focused on building community resources, providing jobs and infrastructure expansion, intended to strengthen foundational development. Examples outlined in the text.
- Society as a whole need to recognize that Retributive Justice alone does not adequately answer the need for repairing injustices. Holding perpetrators accountable must include restorative justice on a wide scale. Addressing criminal elements needs to include; victim reparation that are socially inclusive for mending human relations. Notably, some level of crimes do need to be addressed by utilizing a harsh Retributive stance, but those are not nearly as frequent as crimes caused through social injustices.
Introduction
The International Criminal Justice System (ICJS): The International Criminal Court (ICC), represents one of six main principal organs of the United Nations, namely: the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice, and the UN Secretariat. The UN and all 6 of the principal organs were officially introduced to the world in 1945, following World War II(2). “The name “United Nations”, was coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt and was first used in the Declaration by United Nations of January 01, 1942, during the Second World War (United Nations, n.d).” However, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is the only principal organ of the UN, not located in the United States of America; it is located in Netherlands, at the Peace Palace in the Hague(3). The role of the ICC, is investigating and Prosecuting International Crimes,” with the inception of Rome Statute (1998), providing guiding principles of law for prosecution of international crimes, within the International Criminal Justice System (ICJS)(4).
Footnotes:
(2) United Nations, (n.d), https://www.un.org/en/sections/about-un/main-organs/index.html#:~:text=The%20main%20organs%20of%20the,Justice%2C%20and%20the%20UN%20Secretariat.
(3) About The United Nations, https://www.un.org/en/about-un/index.html
(4) International Criminal Court. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. CourP’enale Internationale, (n.d), https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library/documents/rs-eng.pdf
4
The Rome Statute was ratified in 2002, by 60 States, and adopted by 120 States; less States are willing to sign, because they may also be criminalized for atrocities. The ICJS is systemically aligned to our National and International prosecutorial process; legitimized by nations’ contribution and cooperation. The ICJS incorporate works of the United Nations (UN), comprising of representatives from world nations, in the judicial Courts’ structure. Examples of such are; the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), International Tribunal of Natural Justice (ITNJ), International Human Rights Courts/Tribunals, and other pervading Hybrid courts/tribunals, Mixed domestic-international courts, as well as courts with Regional Jurisdiction(5). Hence, making it possible to coordinate investigations nationally or internationally (domestic or foreign). International crimes are defined under the broad umbrella of: Genocide, Crimes against humanity, War crimes and Aggression(6). Goals of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Tribunals, as well as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), are intertwined in a bold agenda to re-establish peace and security of nations by prosecuting perpetrators of mass atrocities against mankind.
The ICC along with Tribunals, including the ICJ, are institutions functioning under the jurisdiction of the United Nations (UN). Whilst, the UN remains a complex organization, it was created to replace the League of Nations, after WW II. The UN, functions primarily within 6 principal organs, which includes 193 member countries/States(7). The UN must have cooperation from member States to achieve the mandate of securing world peace(8). Therefore, states/countries, as well as individuals expect this work for achieving peace is a real possibility. Hence, it is of particular significance that perpetrators are held accountable. Contributions off; ICC and Tribunals, ICJ, Human Rights courts/tribunals, and members’ State Justice institutions are essential to align the mandate for peace realization, and elimination of crimes against humanity.
Footnotes:
(5) United Nations And The Rule Of Law, https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/thematic-areas/international-law-courts-tribunals/international-hybrid-criminal-courts-tribunals/
(6) P. Dejong, ‘Trying Individuals For Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes, and Aggression,’ Cour P’enale Internationale, (n.d), https://www.icc-cpi.int/about
(7) Member States of The United Nations, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_United_Nations
(8) UN, ‘United Nations Peacekeeping,’ UN, https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/mandates-and-legal-basis-peacekeeping
5
What can we do to make the International Criminal Justice System more effective?
Challenges of the ICC, ICJ, Hybrid Courts, Mixed-Domestic Courts, Regional Courts, ITNJ, as well as Human Rights Courts and Tribunals
States often become the perpetrators of: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression. Therefore, proving to be unwilling participants in promoting international justice, when their very moral and ethical identity is corrupt. Such inadequacies is a reflection of turmoil; therefore lacking integrity in the application of procedural measures in their own criminal justice system (national courts, policing, correctional institutions, and more).
States or countries, tends to evade the international justice system, as can become customary, even vowing to abstain from signing, or ratifying the Rome Statute, if they are not guaranteed immunity. One such example here is, the African Union (AU), at their 30th summit (January, 2018). AU members, sort to leverage immunity during the gathering of sitting Heads of States, by approaching the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Further in September, 2018, Kenya followed by recommending that, immunity for sitting “Heads of States” at the ICJ be part of the UNGA agenda(9). This behavior revealing members of the AU intention, where they attempted to use their 30th, summit to resist prosecution of sitting Heads of States, at the ICJ/ICC.
Further, international justice impartiality is questioned when referrals can be made from the UN Security Council (UNSC); for immunity regarding prosecution. Calling into question the legitimacy and independence of the ICC, or the ICJ. Rome Statute, article 13(b), is blocking fairness, impartiality, effectiveness and total independence of international prosecutions. If member States of the UN Security Council, could simply leverage resolutions to avoid prosecution of “Heads of States;” how effective is the ICC, or the ICJ? Perhaps one strategy, or recommendation capable of restoring the effectiveness of the ICC, is the amendment of the Rome Statute, article 13 (b), allowing referrals to the UNGA, or the UNSC, only in extreme circumstances. For the ICJS to be more effective, special consideration for “Heads of States” with the ICC, or ICJ(10), should not meet the threshold for referrals. These are the very actions that bring institutions of international criminal justice under disrepute.
Footnotes:
(9) P. Pillai,‘The African Union, the International Criminal Court, and the International Court of Justice: At the Fault Lines of International Accountability.’ American Society of International Law, August 22, 2018,. Volume: 22, Issue 10, https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/22/issue/10/african-union-international-criminal-court-and-international-court
(10) International Law and International Legal Thought, ‘Victor’s Justice Contested,’ Voelkerrechtsblog, 2016, https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/articles/victors-justice-contested/
6
If individuals in authority are not respected, if they compromise the proper functioning of international institutions for justice, States are also less likely to cooperate.
The work of international criminal justice, is an uphill battle, organizations are only as good as those serving with powers of authority. Individual conduct within the ICC, are rumored to be less than satisfactory(11); how can this very institution responsible for imparting justice be impartial? Similarly, if one member State relationship within the ICJS, is built on manipulation, favors, or other less credible behaviors, then others learn to expect the same level of methodological inadequacies. Therefore, bringing disgrace to the work of the ICC, ICJ, the ICJS and the UN; only with global trust involving mutual cooperation can credibility be built for improving the functional effectiveness of International Criminal Justice. Another strategy, or recommendation for improving the effectiveness of International Criminal Justice, is to have a system of zero tolerance involving preferential treatments for sitting “Heads of States;” this will improve credibility globally, and States will not expect engagement in such dialogue.
Systemic value of reciprocity when working nationally, or among nations can be a suitable means of exchanging good will. This can be seen with the exchange of labour for money, or some other agreed upon tangible worth. Other social aspects of traits built utilizing reciprocity is mutual respect, neighborly behaviors and so forth. Problems arise when people pretend to have good intentions and is wholly in support of reciprocity, but finds other covert means of rejecting what is good and mutually beneficial for all. This is manipulation and causes harm, because one party intends to benefit while the other party does not!
Some States, or countries use their positions of power to make extremist decision intended to protect international criminal perpetrators on home soil. One example, is the Ugandan government’s acting to intercept justice for victims, while protecting perpetrators. Crimes of great human atrocities, were committed under the authority of the Lord Resistance Army (LRA). The LRA, under the protection of authorities in the Ugandan government reeked havoc in, ”Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Central African Republic (ICTJ, 2015).” After the ICC, got involved the Ugandan government declared amnesty from prosecution for 26,000, soldiers; thirteen thousand of those soldiers worked for the Lord Resistance Army(12). Very admirable that the ICC, did not cave they went ahead with the prosecution of those perpetrators with leadership responsibilities; as described under “Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE).” The ICC, is more interested in those individuals responsible for setting in motion atrocities against humanity.
Footnotes:
(11) E. Wilmhurst, ‘Strengthening The International Criminal Court,’ Chatham House (2019), https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/strengthen-international-criminal-court
(12) ICTJ (Justice, truth, dignity), ‘Is Uganda Judicial System Ready To Prosecute Serious Crimes?’ ICTJ, 2015, https://www.ictj.org/news/uganda-kwoyelo-case
7
A Government denying their citizens justice is a corrupt government, these governments rule with the sword. Facilitating any consideration of such behaviors with immunity/amnesty for; Heads of States, or other perpetrators working on behalf of governments, would make International Criminal Justice appear ineffective. Investigating and prosecuting perpetrators are very costly and time consuming; any interference of the process defies the logic that guided the creation of the ICC.
International criminal justice is a subset of crime prevention; in maintaining peace and global unity. While goals, of establishing transitional justice for the creation of standardized norms nationally and internationally, requires strong participation from member States to eradicate international crimes; and promote overall victim and societal reparation(13). Societies benefit more through collective victim reparation, but the inclusion of victims are often challenging due to; masses of victims, and difficulty collaborating those impact statements. A recommendation here could be creating a better methodology to the madness, when it comes to determining the threshold of victim-hood. Perhaps having specific guidelines can be more worthy; one may benefit from knowing that the ICC does not classify sentencing of crimes in relation to minimum, and maximum sentencing as is customary at the national level. However, it maybe more beneficial to classify victim status by the severity of their exposure to the criminal element; to help with the reparation process and victim selection.
For society to have true justice, there must be reparation for victims, and a system of classification that can work to simplify the process. As it is today, reparation and victim statements are coordinated by groups, or legal entities. Hence, not everyone are included and there tend to be those who benefit significantly and those who are left out. Leaving such decision-making to groups mean the leaders of those groups benefit the most, and can also be partial to some causes and not to others. Therefore, creating a system that all victims can understand saves valuable time and resources; while providing communities with specific guidelines for determining individual and collective restitution. Further, reparation must more often be looked at as a whole, more on improving community resources and building community infrastructure, providing jobs and so forth. Example for those who lost their home, reparation can include a housing project, where those individuals can help to build (creating jobs), and then have the project named after the tragedy. Another example for victims of genocide, possibly build a school/s in commemoration. Another example for injured victims continue assisting with medical bills and immediate expenses, but also link the tragedy to a tangible item to send a clear message. To facilitate such works the ICC could create websites with jurisdictional affiliation for transparency of the process.
Restorative and Transitional Justice, are beginning to be viable means of managing criminal justice conflicts; and can be more valuable at restoring the effectiveness of international criminal justice, than the historic strong stance on retributive justice. It is important to remember that the ICC (Netherlands) does include victim reparation in sentencing of perpetrators; but not all levels or types of International Criminal Courts and Tribunals include victim reparation.
Footnotes:
(13) UN Security Council, ’The rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies : report of the Secretary-General,’ United Nations, 23 August 2004, S/2004/616, https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/files/2004%20 report.pdf
8
Justice without reparation is no justice, but seeks to take revenge on society and remains stagnant — In the words of Albert Einstein “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.”
Cases Prosecuted Involving International Crimes: Retributive and Restorative Measures
Former Liberian President, Charles Taylor indicted by the Special Court of Sierra Leone (SCSL) for international crimes; sort immunity for his crimes. However, the SCSL did not grant any such immunity; Taylor was sentenced to 50 years (2012)(14). Punishment is severe under a strong retributive/adversarial process, and no mention of victim reparation. States in most cases are allowed to confiscated property of individuals who benefit from crime, but fails to adequately re-distribute the proceeds using a meaningful method. It would be more beneficial if victims could have a say in the re-distribution process; particularly so when such processes are transparent. Considerable financial burden to States, and the International Criminal Justice System, with the current method of prosecution and limited meaningful reparation is burdensome; does little, or nothing for victims and society.
Whereas in the case of, Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, convicted, on 14 March, 2012 (sentenced to 14 years), by the ICC for war crimes (Article 8), of enlisting and conscripting of children under the age of 15 years, and using them to participate actively in hostilities. The ICC, in their application of restorative justice, the Trial Chamber II, set the amount of Mr Lubanga’s liability for collective reparations at USD 10,000,000 (2017)(15). Collective reparation can have significant influence on building effectiveness of international criminal justice when used to create jobs; while building and developing infrastructure, as well as sustainable agricultural mandate with community participation. Even in cases where the perpetrator cannot provide immediate reparation, the ICC does calculate reparation and holds the individual accountable. The ICC is also responsible for providing funding in support of victim reparation; based on the availability of funds.
Progress of the ICC & Tribunals
Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal of Yugoslavia (ICTY), Serge Brammertz, said the ICTY is engrossed in sharing of data with national justice institutions in the region. Thus making those justice institutions better able to manage crime in their jurisdiction, and surrounding areas; long after the ICTY leaves the region. Hence, fulfilling a very relevant purpose of the ICTY, to support States’ independence. Mr. Brammertz also expressed concerns over resources, and the incredible length of time taken with the prosecution process; but stresses the importance of maintaining fairness(16). Further saying, it is better to have a lengthy trial, than a speedy trial that does not meet standard criterion of procedural fairness. Similarly, Rome Statute article 70, seeks to instill procedural integrity during prosecution.
Footnotes:
(14) SCSL (In The Appeals Chamber) ’Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor, SCSL-03-1-I,’ Decision on Immunity from Jurisdiction, Special Court for Sierra Leone, 31 May 2004,http://www.rscsl.org/Documents/Decisions/Taylor/Appeal/059/SCSL-03-01-I-059.pdf
(15) International Criminal Court, ‘The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo – Case Information Sheet,’ December, 2017, https://www.icc-cpi.int/CaseInformationSheets/LubangaEng.pdf
(16) C. Stahn,Interview With The Chief Prosecutor of the ICTY: Serge Brammertz,’ Universteit of Leiden–Coursera Inc., 2020, https://www.coursera.org/lecture/international-law-in-action-2/interview-with-chief-prosecutor-of-the-icty-serge-brammertz-Tq9H3
9
Interview with, ICC President, Silvia Fernandez, shows that she remains positive about streamlining processes to include national and international jurisdictions. Indicating that there are now 65 countries internationally, that have ratified the Rome Statute; while stressing the importance of international cooperation; by States in prosecuting international crimes(17).
In my opinion: If more States could see the benefits of ratifying the Rome Statute they would gladly sign in. During and immediately after WW II, when the UN was first introduced there was a similar dilemma, but once the UN’s agenda became clearer more countries signed up; today there are 193 member States who align with the UN.
Footnotes:
(17) C. Stahn, ‘Interview with ICC president: Silvia Fernández de Gurmendi,’ Universteit of Leiden–Coursera Inc., 2020, https://www.coursera.org/lecture/international-law-in-action-2/interview-with-icc-president-silvia-fernandez-de-gurmendi-u0cos
—————————————————————————————————————————————————- Conclusion:
In conclusion, international criminal justice is necessary to prosecute perpetrators of international crimes; especially when States are unwilling to do so. Final recommendations to promote effectiveness of international criminal justice is maintaining consistency of the judicial process. Strengthening institutions are the responsibility of us all; one cannot truly support justice without impartiality. Every individual, state, country, county, municipality, territory, or province and so forth; are responsible for promoting worthy human actions. Reputable behaviors are: those that do not hurt, impair, leave destitute, or commit any type of atrocious actions against another human being. Failing to uphold this responsibility has the ability to trickle into our social systems in society, and be magnified over and over. Hence, this is the legacy; this is where we are, and we are all responsible.
Simply saying the UN, ICJ, or the ICC and Tribunals are responsible; is where we fall short on accountability. Everyone, including States, must take responsibility, or leadership to protect their citizens, mini wars among people on home ground, because of personal, political, or religious beliefs must end. Legislation/s are created to provide guidance, to avoid chaos, provide clarity, keep us functioning in a civilized society with human characteristics, and human behaviors.
International Criminal Justice, is only as strong and effective as our demonstrated unified efforts, extending from country to country, coast to coast. The UN, and international criminal institutions are figure heads, and so it’s easy to lay blame. However, these institutions are run by individuals, therefore individual behavior matters on a grand scale. The UN is capable of becoming more effective functioning with greater efficiency in time; with individual dedication to procedural integrity.
Particular thanks to: Professor / Dr. Carsten Stahn from Leiden University for his work on Coursera in promoting education. Professor Stahn did a fantastic job in providing relevant materials and onsite interviews for this course study: International Law In action — Investigating and Prosecuting International Crimes.. The main contents of this essay was submitted in September, 2020; receiving full marks..
Thanks To UN: For their work and dedication to Global Peace, as well as many supporting documentation and publications.
NOTE: If there are any mistakes please feel free to contact me or leave a comment; this content consists of independent work. I do my own research, writing, proof reading, summation, and article organization.
Greetings To Those Celebrating Veterans and Remembrance Day 2020!
On November 4th., 2020, I completed a significant Art Project: A Tribute To WW II Veterans and Canadian Spitfire PILOT Colonel Charley Fox.
This post represents only a small section of the Oil Painting (4′ by 6′), to read more Go To:http://joypaintings.ca
Contact Form
Journal Entry – Amending The U.S. Constitution: Next Step Prison Reform!
Theoretical Analysis: Social Learning Theory (SLT), theorized by Albert Bandura (1977), re-evaluated and re-named in 1986, as Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), posits that people learn from each another. Learning occurs through taught processes via observation, imitation, and modeling; utilizing classical and operant conditioning. “This theory has often been called a bridge between behaviorist and cognitive learning theories because it encompasses attention, memory, and motivation.”
People And Societal Integration Article!
Vol 1. No. 2., p. 1-19, May 25, 2019.
The content may be utilized for educational purposes with suitable credit attributed to the author with site designation
Quantitative Literature Review
Amending The U.S. Constitution: Permitting Voter Re-Enfranchisement Privileges For Rehabilitated Non-Violent Felons Can Deter Recidivism!
By: Joy Kissoon, B.So.Sc.-Criminal Justice, R.P.N., Artist
Author Reference:
- United States Census Bureau, Suitland, Suitland.Suitland-Silver Hill, Maryland, United States.
- United States Sentencing Commission, Washington D.C., U.S.A.
Correspondence: Joy Kissoon, B.S.Sc. – Criminal Justice, experienced nurse & artist; studies at Humber College of Institute, Technology and Advanced Learning, Lakeshore Campus, Toronto, Canada. Mailing address: 515 Richmond Street, P.O. Box 54, Stn. B, London, Ontario, N6A 4V3, Email: health.care2010@yahoo.ca
Word Count: 6,420
Analysis Consisting of: 3 Table, and 2 Figure
2
ABSTRACT
Equality, and fundamental Human Rights laws are designed to prevent discrimination, that causes some individuals to freely harm others without consequences. All individuals in the human family are entitled to; civic, political, economic, social and cultural rights. The U.S. makes up approximately 5% of the world’s population, but holds 21%, of the world’s incarcerated population. “In the U.S. one in every thirty-seven adults or 2.7%, of the adult population, is under some form of correctional supervision. In 2014, African Americans constituted 2.3 million, or 34% of the total 6.8 million correctional population.” Between 2010–and–2018, the population of African Americans/Blacks in the U.S. increased by .4%; from 13% to 13.4%. This research examines inmate voter (dis)enfranchisement in all 50, U.S. States, imploring law makers to amend the U.S. Constitution for rehabilitated non-violent felons.
Theoretical analysis utilizes, Albert Bandura’s “Social Learning Theory” as a model for managing deterrence and controlling recidivism. Methodological analysis done by exploring legitimacy of arbitrarily ignoring; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), The U.S. Declaration of Independence (1776), as well as, The U.S. Constitution (1787). Analysis of final housing cost per inmate (Table 1), Comparison chart, created to identify laws governing felons right to vote in the U.S. (50) (Table 2). Statistics, for non-violent and violent inmates; as per recidivism outcomes also considered. Finally, it was necessary to do a global comparison (Table 3) to determine what works.
Concluding that Blacks and Latinos/Hispanics overrepresentation in the U.S. Criminal Justice System is correlated to inmates/felons voting disenfranchisement.
KEYWORDS/Phrases:
Human Rights, Felons Voting (Dis)Enfranchisement, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), U.S. Constitution, U.S. Declaration of Independence, Social Learning Theory, Canadian Charter/Constitution of Rights and Freedoms, Blacks and Latinos in the U.S. Justice System.
3
HIGHLIGHTS
- Canada, Ireland, South Africa, as well as Victoria State in Australia, allows enfranchisement for all inmates. Whilst, Chez Republic, as well as Latvia, uphold enfranchisement during “General Elections” only.
- Theoretical analysis, utilizing Albert Bandura’s “Social Learning Theory” as a model for managing deterrence and controlling recidivism in the U.S..
- Voter re-enfranchisement privileges for “rehabilitated non-violent felons”, as a form of positive reinforcement to promote deterrence while reducing recidivism.
- Inmate/felons voter enfranchisement ought to be included in the U.S. Constitution as part and parcel of “Next Steps” criminal justice reform
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948), was ratified by 48 countries globally; including U.S.A. and Canada. The UDHR, is entrenched in international treaties, the U.S. and Canadian Constitution, U.S. Bill of Rights, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, U.S. Declaration of Independence and other justice laws.
INTRODUCTION
U.S. inmate population, is a group of people forced to live in cages; denied voting enfranchisement rights. Societal adversarial system of justice, is the dominant social mechanism of administering justice. Hence, dictating demands for retributive justice; where crime equals harsh punishment. However, nowhere in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), The U.S. Declaration of Independence (1776), or The U.S. Constitution (1787), does it ever imply that one’s natural human rights are extinguished; regardless of circumstances. Humanity is a birth right, nevertheless felony inmates voting rights; are “Not” entrenched in the U.S. Constitution.
Throughout, history a significant portal for affecting social change; has been dependent on governments and the electoral process. Citizens need governments to implement policies, regulations, legislation/s, and meaningful solution based initiatives; designed to impartially acknowledge rights and privileges. Many of which are paramount, “in conflict management for channeling, or re-channeling behavioral expectations” of individuals, groups, and communities, focusing on fundamental structural well-being (Llewellyn, 1940: 1373). Therefore, amendments to the U.S. Constitution permitting voter re-enfranchisement privileges; for rehabilitated non-violent felons can deter recidivism.
Felony voting re-enfranchisement, represents a small step towards acknowledging, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (United Nations, 21st. century), ratified by 48 countries globally; including U.S.A. and Canada. The UDHR implemented in 1948, is entrenched in international treaties, the U.S. and Canadian Constitution, U.S. Bill of Rights, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and other justice laws. The UDHR, is a significant accomplishment in brotherhood among the human family. Further, promoting desistance from; biases, ill-will, discrimination, conscious and unconscious prejudices. Every individual is born with equal and inalienable rights governing freedoms, justice, dignity and world peace. Disregard for inalienable Human Rights results inevitably in atrocious harms against mankind. Therefore UDHR, 1948, specifies Human Rights laws that are necessary for channeling and re-channeling behaviors. Article 21, specifically states:
1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his/her country directly or indirectly through freely chosen representative.
2. Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his/her country.
4
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret voting or by equivalent free voting procedures (General Assembly Resolution 217 A).
Furthermore, the United Nations General Assembly introduced the “International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966)” ratified in 1976. Part 1, Article 1 (1), states, “All peoples have the right of self-determination.By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” Whilst, Part 3, Article 7, states, “No one shall be subjected to torture, cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.” Interestingly, the ICCPR, also specifies reasonableness under the law for those who have committed crimes; states and countries must be humane. Nowhere, does it say that the human family looses fundamental voting privileges; for crimes committed. U.S. States and various Jurisdictions, enacts their own constitutional and other Justice laws; that withholds principally binding inalienable rights.
Essentially, ICCPR Part 3, Article 25, says — Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in Article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:
a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;
b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by Universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electorate;
c) To have access on general terms of equality, to public service in this country.
Human Rights laws, nationally and internationally are upheld for the most part, by conscious thinking individuals who interpret violations of fundamental human rights; as the harshest indignity to a member of the human family. In Canada, voting rights are entrenched in the Canadian Charter/Constitution of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 (3), 1982). However, “disqualifications remained for; judges, prisoners, expatriates and individuals suffering from mental disabilities. Then, in 1993, via Bill C-114, Canada’s Elections Act, was amended to include; Judges, inmates serving less than 2 years, and individuals suffering with mental disability (among other specifics). Nine years later, in 2002, Suave’ v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) the Supreme Court of Canada, ruled that “punishment must not be arbitrary and must serve a valid criminal law purpose. Absence of arbitariness requires that punishment be tailored to the acts and circumstances of the individual offender.” Therefore, all inmates even those serving more than 2 years, have voting enfranchisement rights and violation of such rights were unreasonable.
Interesting fact, the U.S. makes up approximately 5% of the world’s population, but holds 21% of the incarcerated population — Former U.S. President, Clinton’s Crime Bill (1994), witnessed continuing incarceration of poor Blacks; in what had become the prison industrial complex. Justice laws such as; “Tough On Crime,” “Three Strikes,” “Mandatory Minimums,” and “Truth In Sentencing” (sentencing not parole), have seen more Blacks and Latinos loose their freedom; prison became a business. More sentences commuted to life imprisonment with little, or no chance of purposeful rehabilitation/reintegration. These justice laws introduced in the 1970’s–80’s–and–90’s era, have proven that “Tough On Crime” legislation/s does not work as a deterrent; these are counterproductive. Whilst, the actual crime rate has declined, the rate of incarcerating vulnerable populations has elevated; directly as a result of tough on crime legislation/s.
Thus, voter re-enfranchisement privileges for rehabilitated non-violent felons, will be a tremendous step in bringing resolutions to vulnerable populations in America. Tough on crime legislation/s, that unreasonably punish vulnerable populations have not worked. Humane conditions that does not infringe on an individual’s fundamental civic, political, economic, social and cultural rights can deter recidivism. By exercising one’s political right, an individual/inmate will be acting in his, and his country’s best interest.
5
Governments need peoples’ support to ensure a fully functional process of democracy. Further, people need to vote in governments that will maintain impartiality, while working towards balancing social equilibrium; for citizens and those residing within the country boarders. Higher voter turnouts are symbolic of a more engaged population.
The Declaration of Independence (1776), representing 13 U.S Colonies, was ratified to severe ties to Great Britain. Hence, forth promoting; equality, dignity, peace, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for every American. This declaration specifically states that all men are born equally bestowed with inalienable rights by the creator. Americans have the right, and the power to elect government and to abolish destructive government.
The Constitution of the United States of America (1787), ratified in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, initially neglected to ascertain, or consider the question of voting rights. The U.S. Declaration of Independence (1776), robustly emphasizes the electoral process, as the legitimate means of replacing governments. Hence, each U.S. State independently sets voting privileges based on views, or beliefs of those in authority. After the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, automatic segregation were enforced. Early on, acknowledging wealthy Whites, and White males suffrage rights. Thus, only one sector of the population was allowed to engage in the electoral process.
In the 21st. century the U.S., is stuck in the middle ages, where values and beliefs are predominantly reflective of one group in society. Individuals who did not/could not participate in the electoral process were deemed insignificant and their values, beliefs and needs were considered inconsequential.
Later, U.S Constitutional Amendments, were introduced to prevent discrimination, and disenfranchisement of voting privileges among minorities, the less fortunate, and women. History has proven that a change in time, leadership and conscience can result in better more inclusive laws. Hence, there is a real probability of permitting voter privileges to rehabilitated non-violent felony inmates under the U.S. Constitution. However, more often than not laws enacted to prevent prejudices are manipulated, so that under-privileged individuals cannot benefit equally.
6
Minority groups in the U.S. fought and died for voting privileges! Jimmie Lee Jackson (1938–1965), a civil rights activist were instrumental in impacting “The Voting Rights Act (1965).” Jimmie Lee Jackson (Alabama born) were many things, a labourer, a veteran, a Dad, a son, an African American, who struggled for equality and voting rights without prejudice, for Blacks in America. Jackson was fatally shot by a State Trooper on February 18, 1965, while protesting (peacefully) the arrest of a Christian leader (James Orange). Jackson died on February 26, 1965, following his death more marches broke out. According to history, the death of Jimmie Lee Jackson provided a wave forward, empowering other Black men who took up the cause for; voting rights in Black communities. Various jurisdictions/States, in the U.S. refusing to uphold “Constitutional Amendments”, restricted registration qualifications for; Black voters who wished to register to vote. History books reveals, that Blacks were to answer to the beckoning of White men. Of course, not all Caucasian persons discriminated; some stayed true to the U.S. Constitution and their conscience. Thus, encouraging laws favoring equality in times when the majority in Congress were Whites/White men. Hence, in August, 1965, “The Voting Rights Act,” were ratified to allow Black Americans to vote without legal barriers.
Legal barriers, were utilized to prevent Blacks; from exercising their Constitutional right!
The U.S. population census for 2018, was 327,167,434, the number of Blacks in the same time period were 42,531766 (13.4%), and the number of Hispanics or Latinos were 59,217306 (18.1%). “In 2014, African Americans constituted 2.3 million, or 34% of the total 6.8 million correctional population.” Similarly in 2010, Blacks constituted 13% of the U.S. population and 40% of the inmate population. Likewise, also in 2010, Latinos made up 16 % of the U.S. population and 19% of the inmate population. Whilst, Whites in 2010, represented 64% of the American population and 39% of the inmate population. Overall, historically Blacks are overwhelmingly deemed inferior; illiterate, never to maintain eye contact, be assertive, or enjoy the same class/standard of living as their Caucasian counterparts. In light of historic events, racial disparities and prejudicial treatments, it is most evident, that White men utilized legal barriers to withhold voting privileges from Blacks.
In many instances, even those detained (Blacks/Latinos) by the U.S. Criminal Justice System, who have not been charged, or convicted (therefore innocent until proven in a court of law); are among the population who have been denied voting enfranchisement privileges.
Currently, the U.S. prison industrial complex is overwhelmingly an institution of segregation, harsh punishment, and “No access” to voting registration, or facility for inmates to vote via secret voting ballots.
7
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS
Politicians have limited, or no reason for reaching out to the inmate population, or to enact laws favoring equality, or assisting to channel positive behavior, or better living conditions, because this population is viewed in a negative light; not as individuals that will eventually rejoin society. Voting rights, can assist inmates to develop integrity with the knowledge, that their concerns will be addressed. This sort of positive reinforcement is crucial for societies and individuals. Politicians will inevitably, have to include the inmate population, in concessions to the public; when running for office in their community.
Distribution of services to improve cognitive learning during rehabilitation and reintegration remains paramount; so rehabilitated non-violent felony inmates can rejoin society better than when they left. Theoretical analysis adaptable to rehabilitation and reintegration is “Social Learning Theory” (Albert Bandura), inmates will become more adjusted for release into society if they receive training/mentoring on their value in society, and the power of voting privileges. Amending the U.S. Constitution, is going to be effective only if inmates are genuinely able to utilize those rights. A law on paper with no meaningful provision for States, Cities/towns/counties and Countries to act is a meaningless law. There must be avenues for secure inmate voter registration, as well as safe, secret voting privileges; on voting day for those who qualify. Free, dissemination of political parties platform highlighting: literature, videos, political speakers engaging the inmate population, news updates, and more, will improve knowledge in the democratic process. Having substantive information can lead too, or peak interest, encouraging political learning, so that inmates will take their new privilege seriously and want to exercise voting rights.
In the 21st., Century the 45th President of the United States (U.S), Donald J. Trump have begun prison reform with the FIRST STEP Act, signed into law on December 21, 2018. A necessary legislation to begin the process of prison reform in the U.S! It is critically compelling, more than ever for politicians, to consider necessary pathways to reduce America’s inmate population. Appearance, dictates U.S. prison exists for punishment, rather than as punishment for crimes against society. A closer look at the inmate population reveals that; Blacks and Latinos (minorities) are overrepresented in the U.S. inmate population. Minorities with voting rights need to assert those rights! This means going out to vote, but more importantly researching politicians political background, to ensure they have your best interest; based on proven record of support!
The electoral process can be the point where equality begins with greater autonomy for minority populations. Thus, channeling and re-channeling behaviors permitted through legislative measures; to include re-enfranchising voting rights for rehabilitated non-violent felony inmates. Progressive teaching-learning moments promoting societal values, can influence deterrence curbing recidivism long-term/indefinitely. Citizens, residents and inmates will learn that violence is brutally punishable, while non-violent offenders have better prospects of reintegrating with alienable rights under the U.S. Constitution..
8
CONSIDERATION
Today, in the 21st., Century all free U.S. citizens over 18 years of age, have voting rights, and politicians are more considerate when enacting policies, or laws to secure social change. Consequences of not being inclusive or promoting ideas that do not support equal rights under the law are grave. If citizens are not happy with their individual, or country’s progress, they can chose to elect a new leader (every 5 years). Therefore, politicians answer to the voters. Voting rights/privileges among some, or all of the inmate population will go a significant distance; in rectifying some of the inhumane conditions experienced by fellow human beings. Further, permitting inmates to make amends for harms against society; by increasing contributions that promotes social change (voting rights).
Under previous administrations, “White Privilege” mattered fiercely, where the U.S. government’s policies and practices pushes minorities; away from achieving meaningful equality. Avenues utilized to prevent minorities, from voting were tougher criminal justice laws; those incarcerated cannot protest, and looses their voting privileges. Hence, no way off voting out the regime that sort to incarcerate this population in the U.S.
In 2019, the 45th., President of The United States of America is a businessman turned politician. Shortly, after Donald J. Trump was sworn in (2017), Democrats began setting up investigations (the Mueller Probe), calling for impeachment and charges against this President. Allegations, surfacing against U.S. President Trump, an American citizen, born in America, that somehow he colluded with Russians, and the Russian President is allegedly the U.S. President’s boss. Never, had I ever heard of such misguided theories of facts, which brings me back to the paradoxical functionality of our education system in North America… Have we lost all semblance of reality?
Under the 45th., President there’s finally support for ending tough justice laws, preventing mass incarceration of minorities, and possible re-enfranchisement of voting rights for felony inmate; under the U.S. Constitution. An essential factor for consideration, is that inmates eventually rejoin society; felons are not usually incarcerated indefinitely. As a society, do you want to have someone that value the U.S. Constitution, willing to obey social laws, or someone who feels segregated, don’t care about others and has a higher probability of recidivism? Governments has a responsibility to all citizens and countrymen to provide equal opportunities; failing to do so is failure to govern!
Two (2) U.S. States, Vermont and Maine have removed all barriers associated with voting enfranchisement privileges for all inmates (violent and non-violent). Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent contesting the 2020 Presidential nominee as a Democrat, said the founding fathers of Vermont Constitution (1793), believed that voting rights should remain part of their constitution. A person may loose that right, only if they committed voter fraud. Senator Sanders, is now on a path to see all 50 U.S. States re-enfranchise voting privileges for inmates (violent-and-non-violent). Whilst, Senator Sanders appears impartial at times, it is interesting to note that his past is seriously linked to the Clinton’s, and their “Tough On Crime Bill.” Senator Sanders voted for the Clinton Crime Bill (1994), so did Presidential (2020) front runner Joe Biden, the crime bill had no difficulty passing in Congress, and being ratified by Bill Clinton (former President). “The Cost” of implementing this Crime Bill, a grant total of $15.8 Billion. Who will you elect to sit in the U.S. Congress next?
Many States hold strong beliefs in punishment for violent crimes, but what about voting re-enfranchisement for“rehabilitated non-violent inmates?” Non-violent inmates who have shown a capacity for positive thinking while engaging in programs may be eligible for evaluation; as a meaningful path towards deterrence while managing recidivism.
Less than, two years in office newly elected American President Trump, worked with his administration, to finally enact prison reform with the ratification of the “FIRST STEP Act.” Tough on Crime, Mandatory minimums, Truth in Sentence, and Three Strikes legislation/s have come to an abrupt end!
9
METHOD
Quantitative literature review, with supporting legislation/s to determine possibility of voter re-enfranchisement for rehabilitated non-violent felons. Examining Human Rights laws, nationally and internationally, to find distinctions between a citizen living freely in the U.S., and a felony. Making the case by examining the cost of incarceration in the U.S.A. Small comparison chart of 3 States (Table 1.), to show States’ Population (2015), inmate population, cost of housing inmates, the total percent of inmates per State, and cost for housing one inmate in each of the 3 States (Vermont, Florida and California).Could Americans put their monies to better use? You be the judge!
Further, comparison of 50, U.S. States (Table 2), to see how they treat inmates, when it comes to voting privileges; results obtained and recorded. Next, it was essential to look at, or make a list of countries globally and examine how they treat their inmates (Table 3), are inmates allowed to vote, if so is the process successful? What problems were discovered if any (Allen & Overy, Ashurst, Baker & Mckenzie, Clifford Chance, Dechert, DLA Piper, Lalive, and White & Case (2016)?
Short Comparison Of Three States — Vermont, Florida And California; The Highest Rate Of Incarceration And Cost Based On Population Statistics (Vera, 2015).
Table 1 — RESULTS
RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS
Table 1. is most revealing because it clearly captures Florida State, as having the harshest penalties and the most number of incarcerated inmates. In comparison, Vermont State, rate of incarceration is lower than California, making it the lowest among the three States. Interestingly, Vermont and California spends 3 times more on inmate housing and rehabilitation than Florida. It would be interesting to find out exactly what the extra spending means for inmates in these States. How is Florida, able to spend, so much less to do the same job? To find answers it would mean analyzing Florida prison/housing facilities (State/Federal/Private), inmate turnover, inmate satisfaction, mental health care, inmate injury, number of staff and pay equity, overcrowding, solitary confinement, Justice legislation/s, and doing a comparison… However, this research is only directed at prison reform, with the promotion of leniency for rehabilitated/reintegrated non-violent inmates; by amending the U.S. Constitution, to allow voting re-enfranchisement for this population. This research is also instrumental for analyzing, or providing a sobering look at how the U.S. has traditionally treated their minority population. Whilst, proving prisonization has failed to work effectively, so examining consideration for humane avenues to reduce the U.S. inmate population.
10
Comparing States, (50) Voting Rights/Privileges And Possible Voting Re-Enfranchisement For Felony Inmates..
Table 2 — RESULTS
11
12
13
RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS (continue)
Representation Of Results In Table 2
Analysis OF Inmate Voting (Dis)Enfranchisement Rights
From the above Pie Chart, there’s a clear visualization representative of the number of U.S. States that allows inmates/felons to vote, and States that place restrictions/automatic voter disenfranchisement.
a) A number of States (19) agree to automatically restore felons voter re-enfranchisement rights (earn) after sentencing/release, parole and probation.
b) Another fifteen (15) U.S. States agrees to automatically restore felons voter re-enfranchisement rights (earn) after sentencing/release.
c) Difficult to ascertain why 7 States, in the U.S.A. automatically disenfranchise felons for life; they’re barred from ever voting in their country’s electoral process.
d) The U.S.A. is made of 50 States, however only 2 States, allows inmates/felons and detainees voter enfranchisement. Therefore, a clear example of their commitment to the UDHR, ICCPR, the U.S. Declaration of Independence and other national and international treaties; and laws governing inalienable human rights for the human family.
RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS (Continue)
The interesting, take away here is that regardless of the crime most States will eventually re-enfranchise voting privileges/rights. The assertion left, is that somehow voting disenfranchisement is part of rehabilitation? If prisons are designed to rehabilitate does it not make sense to encourage and maintain human rights? Disenfranchisement of voting rights, dictates that prisons are solely for punishment!
Five States, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Washington, don’t allow for automatic felony voter re-enfranchisement even after an individual has fulfilled all their obligations to society. Kentucky, stating their action is in response to the U.S. Constitution, which currently does not have amendments, that will support felons/inmates voter enfranchisement.
As noted above Wyoming State also blocked felony inmates voting privileges, but this changed in 2010. Population statistic at 977,737, for Wyoming in 2018, with an inmate population higher than that of the U.S. as per 100,000 population index.
Tennessee, is the strangest State, appears to have a specific bias, for people in the justice system before 1973 (noted above)! In 2018, there were 23 States, in the United States of America (U.S.A.) with a higher inmate population, than the U.S., and the rest of the world!… This includes Tennessee, with Oklahoma now holding the World’s record for the highest population of incarcerated individuals, per 100,000 population index.
14
Evidence based research, for the non-violent felony inmate population included 15,427 (1991–to–2006) individuals, while the violent inmate offender population selected were 10,004. Non-violent inmates represents 15,427, or 60.7 percent of 25,431 federal offenders, who were released in calendar year, 2005. Whilst, violent inmates represents 10,004, or 39.3 percent of 25,431 federal offenders who were released in the same calendar year. This analysis, revealing non-violent offenders had a much more meaningful chance at reintegration long-term; than violent offenders based on recidivism statics (United States Sentencing Commission, 2019). Therefore, a meaningful development to strengthen deterrence could include reward for good behavior by re-enfranchising voting rights for rehabilitated non-violent felony inmates under the U.S. Constitution.
According to Sawyer and Wagner (2019), “The American criminal justice system has 2.3 million inmates in 1,719 state prisons, 109 federal prisons, 1,772 juvenile correctional facilities, 3,163 local jails, and 80 Indian Country jails, also military prisons, immigration detention facilities, civil commitment centers, state psychiatric hospitals, and prisons in the U.S. territories.” Of these more than half million incarcerated have not had their day in court and are considered innocent until proven otherwise. These inmates/detainees (predominantly Blacks and Latinos) awaiting trial have not lost their U.S. Constitutional voting privileges. More and more inmates awaiting trial are claiming that they were denied opportunity for voter registration, and not allowed to exercise their civic duty under the U.S. Constitution (Root & Doyle, 2018).
U. S. voting privileges are essential for enacting social change elements, we know initially minorities and women were not given voting privileges. Automatic privileges went to White men — Later, the U.S. Constitution was amended to include minorities, and females without discrimination. Interesting how discriminatory practices began centuries ago, but little has change in modern times. Clearly, indicated by incarceration of the most vulnerable in society. Restricting, voting privileges for the inmate population; predominantly consisting of Blacks and Latinos. Research supports that more than half of the inmate population have been held without bail awaiting trial, and that legal apprehension is another means of illegally withholding voting privileges/rights for an already disadvantaged population.
COUNTRIES WITH VOTING ENFRANCHISEMENT OR DISENFRANCHISEMENT FOR INMATES GLOBALLY
(Allen & Overy, et al, 2016)
Table 3
15
16
17
Table 3., above shows that Not all countries allows automatic disenfranchisement for inmates/felons; more countries have conditions/restrictions. However, even the countries who appear on paper to be respectful of Human Rights laws, and who have specification in their Constitutional documents; failed to make adequate allowances too ensure inmates can exercise voting rights. Ireland, South Africa, as well as Victoria, Australia are among international countries/States, that place no restrictions on inmates voting enfranchisement From the above research, it appears that Ireland government, and peoples work the hardest to ensure that Human Rights laws, and treaties are not neglected; while the individual is incarcerated; undergoing rehabilitation.
The European Court of Justice (2015), determined, that States are allowed to disenfranchise inmates voting rights/privileges, based on the gravity and nature of the specific conviction. However, a blanket ban on voting enfranchisement is not tolerated and likely unlawful. More cases have proven successful when contesting voting disenfranchisement rights/privileges in international courts (Allen & Avery, 2016).
WHAT WORKS
In determining what works it became necessary to examining the legitimacy of national and international laws. More particularly, Human Rights laws and the decision of international courts in upholding inalienable rights for the human family. Most of the rulings were considerate, upholding international Human Rights laws for all inmates. However, the European Court of Justice (2015), does specify that countries/States may implement laws that ban enfranchisement based on the gravity of the offender’s crime— Whilst, The Supreme Court of Canada, determined that arbitrary disenfranchisement ought not to be tolerated; based on the unreasonableness of such actions.
This research concludes that Non-violent offenders are more likely to serve their time for harms against society, and rejoin communities; either by means of parole, probation, early release, or release without supervision (United States Sentencing Commission, 2019). Through careful analysis, it would be ideal to say that voter enfranchisement for all inmates is a constitutional right. Only, such a conclusion is more likely to anger a large portion of authority figures; who work day-to-day in the U.S. criminal justice system with extremely violent offenders/inmates. The whole purpose of incarceration (a modern day crime solution) is segregation to ensure safety and security of the larger population.
If society, as a whole is to consider the significant burden of housing inmates for lengthened sentences; one will agree that the goal of incarceration ought to be rehabilitation, and release that supports reintegration within communities. So allowing for transition from inmates back to citizens/residents. Therefore, amending the U.S. Constitution to permit voter enfranchisement for “rehabilitate non-violent felons” will work to strengthen equality, and inclusivity, whilst reducing recidivism.
Working, towards inmates rehabilitation, reintegration, and restoring voting rights/privileges, are significant and ought to be upheld by the U.S. Constitution; as part and parcel of “Next.Step” U.S. Criminal Justice Reform.
18
LIMITATIONS
This literature review, was completed utilizing quantitative and qualitative data without much difficulty, because the topic of U.S. incarceration and racial disparity is abundantly researched. However, another incentive for amending the U.S. Constitution for inmates/felons, would be to do a qualitative analysis of Vermont and Maine (U.S.A.), to determine how successful they have been in managing recidivism, and ensuring voting rights for all inmates.
CONCLUSION
Nationally and internationally, global countries and U.S. States, more often than not, adapt the consensus that voter enfranchisement for: non-violent inmates (felons included), pretrial detainees, and rehabilitated inmates, ought to be automatic! Problems identified in the U.S. justice system reveals; inmates/felons, and detainees disenfranchisement are dominantly correlated to a population bias; involving Blacks and Latinos. Thus, promoting a lack of inmate trust in governments and the electoral process.
A phenomenal concern, is that inmates are not encouraged to channel and re-channel behaviors; based on the legitimacy of Human Rights laws. Inmates, are more often than not segregated from society, and kept as outcast, not learning to become better citizens; but feeling expelled with little initiative to engage in inalienable rights; even when those rights are permitted.
U.S. Prison facilities, have continuously housed poor addicts, with Black or Latino heritage, living in substandard neighborhoods. “Tough on Crime” atmosphere took away voting rights for inmates, as well as detainees — not only rights deprivation, but sentences were all too often increased to life… For decades, recidivism purposely kept high with the same individuals having difficulty finding work, with high unemployment statistics, and drug use. The U.S. prison system, became a revolving door. Hence, crime rates drop, while rate of incarceration goes up.
From the above research, it is clear that “rehabilitated non-violent felons”, ought not to be robbed of inalienable Human Right. One positive reinforcement, in the rehabilitation process, that has the prospect of erasing harms, is probable amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Permitting rehabilitated, non-violent offenders to have voting privileges; that is safe via secret ballot. The Declaration of Independence, UDHR, and ICCPHR supports inalienable rights for all humans without distinction. The FIRST STEP Act (2018), is phenomenal, and prison reform in America, must continue with “Next Steps”, or future legislation; permitting “rehabilitated non-violent felony inmate” re-enfranchisement.
Amending the U.S. Constitution, will go a considerable distance in managing recidivism, as well as changing global perspective about Human Rights violations in the U.S. Currently, America is widely known for housing the largest population of inmates in the world.
A simple amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the stroke of a pen can go a significant distance to increasing inmate’s confidence in the electoral process, decrease recidivism, while reducing the U.S. prison population; which is a violation of national and international Human Rights laws.
19
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This is a completely independent research — My thanks to all the researchers who saw deficiency in the U.S. government’s treatment of different sectors of their population, and found a way to do research and make their publications available free of charge. Individuals like myself are thankful for the continued sharing and so this site was also created to share and educate. Hence, we could continue to answer pertinent research questions such as: what does the law say? Does every U.S. State ignore Human Rights laws? Does every country ignore Human Rights laws? Is there a possibility for amending laws that ignores Human Rights? So what Works, and can we fix the problem?
New possibilities exists with the 45th., President Donald J. Trump, who continues to work tirelessly to bring about equality in the United States of America — My thanks also to this President for his meaningful contributions to society!
Last, but not least…particular thanks to WordPress who makes it possible for me to start sharing and publishing my works online (Free). Google is also fantastic…with all my searches…I trust Google and also enjoys free Blogging and sharing on their sites! I do the work and they give me a platform for sharing — Many thanks!
LINKS
Allen & Overy, Ashurst, Baker & Mckenzie, Clifford Chance, Dechert, DLA Piper, Lalive, and White & Case (2016). Promoting Fair and Effective Criminal Justice. PRI – The Right of Prisoners To Vote: A Global Overview
Incarceration Numbers State To State In Comparison With International Countries: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2018.html
Congress (2004). H.R. 3355 (103rd): Violent Crime Control And Law Enforcement Act 1994. Retrieved From https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1994/h416
Justice Laws Website (2019. The Constitution Act, 1982. Retrieved From
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const//page-15.html#docCont. Government of Canada
NAACP (2019). Criminal Justice Fact Sheet. Retrieved From
https://www.naacp.org/criminal-justice-fact-sheet/
Root D. & Doyle L., (2018). Protecting The Voting Rights Of Americans Detained While Awaiting Trial:
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2018/08/23/455011/protecting-voting-rights-americans-detained-awaiting-trial/
Rights In Russia (2016). Legal Case Of The Week: Prisoners’ Voting Rights:http://www.rightsinrussia.info/legal-case-of-the-week/prisonersvotingrights
Sawyer W. Wagner P., (2019).Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2019. Retrieved From https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2019.html
The White House (2019). The Historic Results of President Donald J.Trump’s First Two Years In Office. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/the-historic-results-of-president-donald-j-trumps-first-two-years-in-office/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wh
United Nations (21st. Century). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved From https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
The United States Census Bureau (2018). Quick Facts United States. Retrieved From
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045218
United States Census Bureau, (2016). Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015: 2015 Population Estimates. Retrieved From https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
United States Sentencing Commission (2019). Recidivism Among Federal Violent Offenders. Retrieved From https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2019/20190124_Recidivism_Violence.pdf
Vera, 2015. Prison Spending In 2015. Retrieved From https://www.vera.org/publications/price-of-prisons-2015-state-spending-trends/price-of-prisons-2015-state-spending-trends/price-of-prisons-2015-state-spending-trends-prison-spending
This page have a couple of the links associated with this research, for more links see in-text links provided.
PSE – People and Society Empathizers! https://issuesdisussion.blogspot.com/
Where To Draw The Line!
By: Joy Kissoon (Artist, Nurse, B.S.Sc.-Criminal Justice)
https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/6/16263704/russia-election-hacking-facebook-ad-spending
Facebook Controls For Political Adds:
http:// https://www.facebook.com/business/news/the-authorization-process-for-us-advertisers-to-run-political-ads-on-facebook-is-
Google Controls For Political Adds:
https://support.google.com/displayvideo/answer/9014141?hl=en —
Twitter Controls For Political Adds:
https://business.twitter.com/en/help/ads-policies/restricted-content-policies/political-campaigning/political-campaigning-advertising-policy-FAQs.html
Countries around the world hustle to muzzle social media giants..a form of censorship to prevent what is termed “Election Meddling.” This is possibly why local media representatives, do not always highlight foreign news..what we see is mainly massive disasters or anything deemed noteworthy in the way of horrific content! Anything else, released to foreign citizens who take an immediate interest; are not perceived as relevant by main stream media outlets. What is frightening, is that any social media platform that allow individuals to connect locally, and internationally; are regarded as formidable threats! Citizens socially engaging and reporting news/issues pertinent to them, in their part of the world…is worrisome for some governments/social entities…huh…
Social media has broken barriers for people who couldn’t find family, friends and acquaintances around the world, but a lot of individuals in power foresee this medium as a real threat to their capitalist ventures…
Much thanks to: Facebook, Google+ & Twitter for hosting reputable, responsible sharing nationally and internationally!
Wow the things you learn when you start asking questions!
—————————————————————————————————————–
December 27, 2018
United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO):
https://en.unesco.org/indigenous-peoples/undrip
Journal Entry
Vol 1. No. 1., p. 1-22, November 03, 2018.
People And Societal Integration Article!
The content may be utilized for educational purposes with suitable credit attributed to the author with site designation
Journal Research:
European Colonization And Intergenerational Traumatic Health Deficits Contributing To Gang Violence For Aboriginal Youths In Canada.
An Analysis Of Historical And Present-Day Government Social Policy To Determine What Works!
By: Joy Kissoon, B.S.Sc.-Criminal Justice, R.P.N., Artist
Author Reference:
- Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Government of Canada Publishing & Depository Services Directorate, Ottawa ON K1A 0S5
Correspondence: Joy Kissoon, B.S.Sc. – Criminal Justice, experienced nurse & artist; recent studies at Humber Lakeshore College Campus (Toronto, Canada). Mailing address: 515 Richmond Street, P.O. Box 54, Stn. B, London, Ontario, N6A 4V3, Email: health.care2010@yahoo.ca
Word Count For Main Text: 3,976
Analysis Consisting of: 1 Table, and 1 Figure
2
Abstract (246 words)
Introduction: European colonization is a period in Canadian history where British and French settlers began occupying territories, or Indigenous land in their quest for power overseas. The original inhabitants of Canada were First Nations, Metis and Inuit population; collectively referred to as Indigenous/Aboriginal peoples. Incidentally, colonization is proclaimed a causation of Intergenerational traumatic health deficits contributing to present-day gang violence for the Canadian Indigenous youth population. Statistics revealing Indigenous youths accounts for approximately 6% of the Canadian youth population. Yet, there are widespread media reports of Aboriginal youths’ gang violence in Canada.
Method: Theoretical, sociological perspectives chosen to deductively conceptualize, how Indigenous youths’ can benefit from social integration and life course interventions. Durkheim and Simpson, combined with Moffitt’s theoretical analysis utilized to determine what works to achieve social equilibrium for Indigenous youths. Thus, providing valuable theoretical insight into counteracting Intergenerational traumatic health deficits. Notable concern is trauma disseminated over the generational spectrum reflecting a ripple effect. Therefore, it is imperative to analyze legislative successes and failures such as: 1) The Indian Department, The British North American Act, The Royal Proclamation, The Indian Act, The Dominion Land Act, The Manitoba Act, Indian Residential Schools, Canadian Welfare System, and The Youth Criminal Justice Act (Y.C.J.A). 2) What works theoretically to counteract Intergenerational traumatic health deficits?
Concluding: Government legislative social policy interventions, exposing a rippling effect; proving European colonization and Intergenerational traumatic health deficits correlates to gang violence for Aboriginal youths in Canada.
Keywords: Indigenous, Aboriginal, Colonization, A Rippling Effect, Government Legislative Social Policies, Gang Violence, Youth Criminal Justice Act, Counteracting Intergenerational Trauma
Highlights (103 words)
-
- Intergenerational traumatic health deficits are experiences endured by Indigenous people during European colonization; that compromises future health status from generation to generation.
-
- Colonization and Indian Residential Schools (I.R.S) are determinants of health for Indigenous youths.
-
- Historic and present-day government legislative social policies (colonization) have a rippling effect on Indigenous youths in Canada.
-
- Intergenerational traumatic health deficits suffered by Canadian Indigenous youths are related to poor decision making, gang affiliation and gang violence.
-
- Theoretically, environmental factors inclusive of individual-family-group-and-community are social determinants of health; contributing to wholistic wellness. Thus, social integration and life course development are significant for counteracting Intergenerational traumatic health deficits.
3
Introduction
Aboriginal youths are prone to Intergenerational traumatic health deficits stemming from European colonization (The Canadian Institute of Health Research, 2007). Thus, displaying inherited health deficits that impair Indigenous youths’ decision-making triggering gang violence in Canada (TCIoHR, 2007). Berube, (2015), explains Intergenerational trauma as a rippling effect disseminating from one generation to another via; parents, grandparents, and great grandparents. Each generation experiencing similar environmental, social, economic and health deficits. According to, Lewin (2017), the rippling effect is a social phenomenon impacting healthy outcomes for individuals where a persons’ environment, stress level, sleep pattern, exercise, nutrition, achievement, and daily activity are essential.
There are extensive literature reviews (Menzie, 2010; Paradies, 2016; TCIoHR, 2007), collaborating that Intergenerational traumatic health deficits are by-products of colonization. This literature study attempts to find historic legislations and trace the effect those legislations have on Intergenerational traumatic health deficits and gang violence among Indigenous youths in Canada. Theoretical analysis is essential to determine what works to counteract Intergenerational traumatic health deficits for Indigenous youths. Sociologist Durkheim and Simpson’s (1951), research provides an integrational perspective for theoretical behavior analysis. However, their work was limited, without actual statistical clarification, or generalization related to; age, sex, race, ethnicity, or social class. This literature review goes one step further by identifying the specific population, race, ethnicity and social class. Further, integrating Moffitt (1993), developmental analysis of behavior from childhood-to-adulthood to provide insight into positive socialization, and health benefits. The goal is nurturing social integration through life course development; with the expectation that positive socialization can counteract Intergenerational traumatic health deficits for Indigenous youths. Interestingly, Durkheim (1897/1951); White and Jodoin (2003), family and community bonds such as: school, peer groups, cultural affiliation and societal values are contributive forces essential to sustain protective, normative behaviors. Strong communities assist in elevating individuals’ self-esteem, thus avoiding triggers associated with antisocial behaviors (Paradies, 2016).
According to, Czyzewski (2011), “social determinants of health” are dependent on environmental factors that promote inclusiveness of individuals, families, and groups within communities. Whilst, Adelson (2005); Howell, Auger, Gomes, Brown, & Young Leon (2016), environmental health disparities are asymmetrical for Indigenous peoples; when compared to non-Indigenous Canadians. Environmental factors contributing to health disparity for Indigenous youths are: poor infrastructure, economic stagnation, inadequate housing, unemployment, poor earning potential and low academic integrity. Indigenous youths’ residing in physical environment riddled with systemic inequality and power imbalance, threatens health and socioeconomic stability (International Symposium on the Social Determinants of Indigenous Health, 2007). Likewise, during the ISotSDoIH (2007), for the Commission on Social Determinants of Health, evidence-based reporting distinguishes health as a human factor disproportional for the Indigenous population.
Study by Kong (2009), is symptomatic of vast over-representation and prisonization experienced by Aboriginal youths in the Canadian Criminal Justice System. Further, in 2007-and-2008, Kong (2009), reports Indigenous youths represent a mere six percent of the Canadian youth population. Yet, Indigenous youths in the criminal justice system represent: twenty-five percent in remand, thirty-three percent incarcerated, with twenty-one percent on probation. Similarly, statistics from the Department of Justice (2015a), revealing “incarceration rate for Aboriginal youths were 64.5 per 10,000 populations, while incarceration rate for non-Aboriginal youths were 8.2 per 10,000 populations (para. 2).” Likewise, the intensification of Indigenous youths’ custody figures for; Saskatchewan, Yukon, and Manitoba, were 16-to-30, times higher than any other provinces and territories in Canada.
4
Interestingly, Aboriginal youth’s gang violence is accentuated and sensationalized in Canadian media, Vice Staff (2014), labeling Winnipeg; “the murder capital of Canada (para. 1).” Likewise, studies by, Preston, Carr-Stewart and Bruno (2012), names Winnipeg the epicenter for Aboriginal youths’ gang violence. Nevertheless, Sawchuk (2017), list Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada as having a total of 13%, of the grand total of First Nations, Metis and Inuit population. Whilst, the entire Indigenous youth population makes up 6% of the total number of youths in Canada (Kong, 2009).
Locating Myself In This Research
Joy Kissoon
I am a first-generation migrant of minority Canadian status originally from Trinidad and Tobago (South America). I felt it was my duty and responsibility to assimilate, and the best way to do so was through education. I arrived in Canada with a college education from Trinidad and Tobago, with proficiency in; History, Biology, Commerce, English Language, and Art. In Canada, I began by enrolling in adult courses at the community high school, then free online courses on government of Canada website, while continuing with job training, and college courses. Later, I enrolled in prerequisite to nursing courses at Georgian College in Owen Sound, ON, then entered the Practical Nursing Program and registered with the College of Nurses in, 2003. Thereafter working in mental health and community nursing. My practice included working in shift and visiting nursing. My specialty has been pediatrics, geriatrics, out-patient, emergency and chronic care.
After arriving in Canada, I faced questions such as: Why Canada? Are the people in your country very poor? Why are you here? These questions can make an individual feel like a trespasser. However, I soon learned the original inhabitants of Canada are of Aboriginal and Indigenous backgrounds! Indigenous people, originally owned the land that migrants from many other nationality, and cultures now call home. I remain fascinated by the unique, vibrant culture of Aboriginal heritage. Having spent time in parts of Northern and Southern Ontario; I have seen the segregation and marginalization of First Nations people. Usually, Indigenous communities are found on the outskirts of small towns living in trailer parks communities with sub-standard housing, no electricity at times, or basic amenities for survival. Societal respect for Indigenous culture, heritage and peoples are low with reference to stigmatization of behaviors, and limited effort to truly comprehend the plight of Aboriginal peoples. Their communities rely on out-houses in times when the poorest most vulnerable in Canada enjoy adequate amenities; with heat, hydro, and toilet facility as basic necessities.
5
During my studies in Baccalaureate of Social Science – Criminal Justice at Humber Lakeshore College Campus, our courses were reflective of Indigenous history. I ceased every opportunity to do research papers and projects, even interviewing person of Indigenous heritage (Toronto City Hall, Ontario, Canada), to add to my knowledge of this vibrant culture. In third year the Honorable Judge Murray Sinclair, Chairman of The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) visited Humber Lakeshore Campus with a presentation on; colonization, Intergenerational trauma suffered by Aboriginals, and specific goals of TRC. Only by learning, writing and presenting on Indigenous people’s heritage in a respectful way; can we hope to one day fully experience integration of Indigenous peoples in a whoistic society. A people, who to this day continues their battle to reinstate equality they lost some centuries ago. There are vast amounts of empirical studies regarding colonization and the ongoing plight of Indigenous peoples, it is essential to continue sharing knowledge learned about Indigenous heritage, and consequences of Intergenerational trauma with the public. We are different, yet we face the same struggles for survival in a society that continues to discriminate, weather intentional or unintentional; the outcome is the same.
Theoretical Analysis And Explanation Of Behavior
Empirical observations on theoretical sociological analysis provided by, Durkheim and Simpson (1951), describes individual integration as egoistic, whilst group/community integration referred to as altruistic, and lawful behaviors termed anomic. Positive social integration, group solidarity and law-abiding behaviors work to protect individuals from adverse risk factors. Social environmental integration is essential for maintaining lawful behaviors. However, too much, too little, or inadequate positive integration within groups (gangs); can trigger negative behaviors (Durkheim and Simpson, 1951).
Essentially, Durkheim’s (1897/1951), theory of social integration promotes cohesion in social groups. Whilst, Moffitt (1993), life course theory utilized to predict criminogenic factors related to life course outcomes. Life course theory describes two types of behaviors: 1) Adolescent-limited – described as normative due to immaturity, because the behavior is usually non-violent and does not persist into adulthood. 2) Life-course persistent antisocial stage – behaviors triggering criminogenic development during early childhood and continuing into adulthood.
Youths in unstable family and community environment tend to trigger risky behaviors; due to poor decision-making (White and Jodoin, 2003). Whilst, Moffitt (1993), “individuals develop neuropsychological risk for difficult temperament and behavioral problems; in the life-course persistent stage (p. 5).” Prevention is dependent on “underlying disposition change in manifestation when age and social circumstances alter opportunities (p. 6).”
6
Figure 1. Visual Representation Based On White And Jodoin (2003); Promising Strategies
According to White and Jodoin (2003), healthy behavior development can be achieved through environmental, social, cultural and societal integration. Family, peer, school, and community can be contributive forces that offer individual protection. Whilst, the environment created can be protective or risky; which essentially results in a society with strong structural values, or fragile, challenged and disabled (Durkheim & Simpson, 1951; Knoester & Haynie, 2005; Moffitt, 1993).
Intergenerational Traumatic Health Deficits
Interestingly, Paradies (2016); Totten (2009), The Canadian Free Press (2010); Vice Staff (2014), extensive literature analysis identifies Aboriginal youths’ as products of Intergenerational trauma. Acknowledging health deficits linked to social disintegration, economic instability, lack of positive family and group affiliations related to power imbalance from periods of colonization. Hence, triggering the development of self-harming behaviors due to poor decision-making skills, contributing to gang violence (Berube, 2015; Shulman and Tahirali, 2016).
Moreover, Shulman & Tahirali (2016), reported (in 2000), Aboriginal youths 15-to-24, were 5-to-6 times more likely to self-harm; causing death by suicide. Whilst, Indigenous youths’ (male) suicide rate were 102, per hundred thousand, higher than non-Indigenous youths. Czyzewski (2011), non-Aboriginals life-expectancy are 5-to-8 times better than that of Aboriginal peoples.
7
Furthermore, Corrado (2014); Johnson (2012); Paradies (2016); Public Safety Canada (2017a); Totten (2009), consequential Intergenerational trauma experienced consists off: land deprivation, economic stratification, loss of culturally traditional practices, loss of family through I.R.S., child abuse and neglect, physical-sexual and psychological abuse, perverse patterns of abuse both as victims and perpetrators, single parenting, inadequate bonding, poor health, low/no academic success, alcohol and drugs use, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (F.A.S.D), poor decision-making, intense over-representation (prisonization), youths engaging in self-harm (internalized), as well as negative peer association linked to gang violence (externalized). These hydra-headed social triggers appears to have a rippling effect where Indigenous youths are susceptible to Intergenerational health deficits. Public Safety Canada, 2017a; Alfred, N.D, studies reveal colonization attributed to adverse health associated with Indigenous youths’ criminogenic behaviors.
Background – Gang Violence And Incarceration
Indigenous, or Aboriginal are used interchangeably in this research to represent the first people to occupy Canada; First Nations, Metis’ and Inuit peoples (White and Jodoin, 2003).
According to Menzie (2010); Paradies (2016), there are multiple evidence-based research linking Aboriginal Intergenerational traumatic health deficits to colonization. Similarly, studies by Grekul and LaBoucane-Benson (2008), contain testaments (ethnography) of Indigenous persons and law enforcement authority figures, experience within the culture of gang behavior and gang violence; verifying that colonization, racial discrimination, and deficiency of opportunity, contributes to Indigenous youths’ over-representation in the Criminal Justice System (Corrado, Kuehn & Margaritescu, 2014).
Present-day, Canadian Criminal Justice System (C.J.S) response to Aboriginal youths’ aggression, violence and crime (Grekul, et al., 2008; Jackson, 2015), are mass incarceration and over-representation. Studies, by Jackson (2015); Department of Justice (2015a), show disproportionately high rates of custody, remand and probation experienced by Aboriginal youths in Canada (Kong, 2009).
Further, Public Safety Canada, 2017a; Preston, et al. (2012), empirical studies indicate, Indigenous youths as young as eights years old start engaging in gang violence. However, the nominal age for gang entry is 12 years. Furthermore, Preston, et al. (2012), study reports in Alberta “approximately 44% of gang members are between the ages of 16 to 21 years old, the other 56% is 22 years old or older (p. 198).”
8
Purpose Of Researching Intergenerational Traumatic Health Deficits
This research is significant for analyzing contributive forces/triggers to Intergenerational trauma endured by Canadian Indigenous youths. It is essential to know how colonization impacts Intergenerational traumatic health deficits. Identifying social policies impacting Intergenerational traumatic health deficits can assist in determining successes and failures during European colonization. Further, documentation of Intergenerational trauma is necessary to verify the veracity of historic legislative interventions (colonization) on health deficits and behavioral triggers associated with Indigenous youths’ life outcomes. Similarly, counteracting Intergenerational traumatic health deficits by providing theoretical analysis is paramount. Durkheim and Simpson (1951); Moffitt (1993), focuses on integration and healthy child-youth-adult development in socially conducive environment. Therefore, this literature research analyzes legislations such as: 1) The Indian Department, The Indian Act, The British North American Act, The Royal Proclamation, The Dominion Land Act, The Manitoba Act, Canadian Welfare System, and The Youth Criminal Justice Act (Y.C.J.A). 2) What works theoretically to counteract Intergenerational traumatic health deficits?
Moreover, providing a guideline for meaningful government social change within Indigenous communities; may assist with managing health deficits triggering gang violence. Perhaps, assisting to plan strategies that work to counteract Intergenerational trauma, and communicate success. Treatment programs are great short-term interventions, but environmental stability, safety and security are equally important. Essentially, it is the responsibility of governments to assist with protective interventions for healthy child-youth-adult development; long-term.
Method
This literature review analyzed colonization (historic government social legislative interventions) (Table 1), and Intergenerational trauma to reveal contributing health deficits, triggering present-day gang violence for Aboriginal youths in Canada; disclosing a rippling effect. Theoretical analysis by Durkheim and Simpson (1951), linked with Moffitt (1993), provide interventions for what works to counteract Intergenerational traumatic health deficits (Figure 1). Evidence based literature utilized were: statistics, media reports, literature studies by persons of Aboriginal/Indigenous background (ethnography), government websites, including journal articles providing empirical observations of European colonization (legislative Acts), reports on Indian Residential Schools, the Canadian Welfare System, and the Criminal Justice System.
9
Goals of this study were to analyze colonial and present-day government legislative social policies, to determine the correlation to Intergenerational traumatic health deficits and Indigenous youths’ gang violence. Analyzing legislations such as: 1) The Indian Department, The British North American Act, The Royal Proclamation, The Indian Act, The Dominion Land Act, The Manitoba Act, Indian Residential Schools, Canadian Welfare System, and Y.C.J.A. 2) What works theoretically to counteract Intergenerational traumatic health deficits?
The population identified: Canadian Aboriginal youths of various descents, Metis, Inuit and First nations people. Thus, inclusive of Aboriginal youths, on and off reserves, status, or non-status, rural or urban, communities in Canada.
Results
Table 1. Canadian Government Interventions, Colonization, And Intergenerational Trauma Contributing To Health Deficits And Gang Violence
Government Social Legislation Policies or Interventions |
Colonization |
Intergenerati-onal Traumatic health deficits (hydra headed social triggers): The Rippling Effect |
Successes and Failures |
The Indian Department (1755)(Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, 2015) |
Meant to protect Indigenous land & people; working to promote segregation & discrimination |
Contribute to loss of land, economic instability, loss of cultural identity & practices |
Failure to protect Indigenous land; contributing to mass deprivation, economic stagnation, poverty, displacement |
The Royal Proclamation (1763)(Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, 2015) |
All land to the West declared Indigenous. Later, with the introduction of more than 35 treaties, worked to rob Indigenous peoples of their land |
Economic stratification, poverty, discrimination, stigmatization and marginalization |
Success initially later turned to failure where Indigenous peoples striped of their lands rights and any control of their living situation |
The British North American Act (1867) (Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, 2015) |
Deprived Indians of basic human rights to territorial lands & control of Indigenous kids |
Loss of cultural, social, family and community identity, loss of territorial lands |
Nullification of cultural values, identities and social, cultural, spiritual, deprivation |
The Indian Act (1876) (Indigenous & Northern Affairs Canada, 2015; Chansonneuve, 2005); Joseph, 2013; Morden, 2016; Rennie, 2013) |
Replacing the Indian Department and assuming control of aspects of Indigenous lifestyle & practices; Introduction of I.R.S. |
Indians told what they can and cannot do, prohibiting aspects of cultural & social behavior |
Legislative trap, annihilation of cultural values, language & practices for Indigenous youth community. Failing to protect, educate/assimilate |
The Dominion Land Act (1872)(Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, 2015; Joseph, 2013) |
Colonization where Eighty million hectares of Indigenous land in Western Canada transferred for colonist settlement |
Legislation causing resource deprivation & economic hardship |
Further loss of massive portions of territorial lands in Canada |
The Manitoba Act (1870)(Dangerfield, 2016;Joseph, 2013; Rennie, 2013) |
Colonization allowing for land transfers to 7000 Metis kids were wrongfully issued to settlers |
Lack of transfers led to more than 140 years of unrest & social deprivation |
Failure stimulating discourse for more than a century; truce in 2016 between the Canadian government & Manitoba Métis Federation president |
Indian Residential Schools (I.R.S) (1892)(Bebrube, 2015; Chansonneuve 2005; Menzie 2010; Paradies, 2016; Totten, 2009; Woods, 2013)Closure of I.R.S. between 1969-and-1996(Bebrube, 2015; Chansonneuve, 2005; Johnson (2012), Menzie, 2010; Taiaiake, N.D) |
Industrial boarding & I.R.S. schools, homes for students, hostels, billets with a majority of day students, or a combination of anyColonization resulting in abuse & neglect of Indigenous kids – Public outcry led to closure of I.R.S. |
I.R.S. separating Indigenous kids from their family values, cultural & spiritual heritage. Failure to educate, physical & psychological health deficitsPhysical & mental health deficits, sexual abuse & traumas, loss ofenvironmental social family &community group integration, & stability |
Failure to assimilate & educate. Worked to segregate, marginalize, annihilate, discriminate, fostering physical, sexual, emotional, spiritual, psychological & environmental traumaFailed to adequately integrate Indigenous kids into society. Resulting in transfers of children into the Canadian Welfare System where the cycle of abuse continues with ongoing attempts to assimilate by placing Indigenous kids in foster care with parents who cannot provide cultural values, practices and language association |
Canadian Welfare System (Government of Canada, 2018b; Johnson, 2012; Menzie, 2010; National Post, 2014) |
Replaced I.R.S. Indigenous kids placed with Caucasian foster parents, identity nullification |
Loss of stability within family & community triggering anxiety, depression, suicide, ill-health |
Continue abuse & neglect of Indigenous children placed in homes of non-Indigenous parentage |
Youth Criminal Justice Act (2003)(Grekul, et al., 2008); Preston, et al., 2012; Statistics Canada, March 22, 2016a) |
Overrepresentation & Prisonization learning coping strategies for survival – engaging in gang activity |
Lack of love, belonging, safety, security, leniency, triggering suicide depression, & crime |
Successful initially to reintegrate; then abuse of systemic authority contributing to crime & gang formation in Canadian urban area |
10
Discussion And Observation
The above table contains only a few documented legislations that dictated the path of colonization; along with present-day ramifications. The outline of this paper in no way expects to touch the actual depth of despair, annihilation and tragedy experienced by Indigenous peoples.
Each legislation listed above started out with the purpose of colonization, appearing to provide meaningful changes that could be supportive of Indigenous heritage. Only through time and differing perspectives each legislation were either changed or implemented in favor of European survival. As documented above, studies by, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (2015), reveals, The Indian Department (1755), failure to form alliances between European settlers and Aboriginal peoples. Instead of assimilating and integrating there were reports of fraudulent, abusive land transfers. Land treaties historically depriving Indigenous peoples of their livelihood, and economic integrity by confiscating land titles. Resulting in, centuries of Intergenerational traumatic health deficits, and unrest triggering present-day Aboriginal youths’ gang violence (Menzie, 2010; Paradies, 2016; Preston et al., 2012).
Similarly, The Royal Proclamation (1763), studied by Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (2015), discloses “all land to the West were declared Indian Territories (Para. 5).” Later, new legislations and more than (35) land treaties witnessed re-transferring of land ownership to Europeans. Aboriginal peoples lost valuable economic resources, what appeared to be successful immediately turned into despair and trauma. Successful government legislative social policies provide for healthy integration rather than traumatic health deficits.
Incidentally, The British North American Act (BNA Act, 1867), worked to give Europeans authority over Indigenous children. Whilst, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (2015), were responsible for “Indians and Indian land,” a federal obligation to no avail (Para. 14). Similarly, The Indian Act (1876), described by Morden (2016), as authoritarian, regulating the lives of Indigenous peoples; a “legislative trap.” Further, The Dominion Land Act (1872), noted eighty million hectares of Indigenous land in Western Canada transferred for colonist settlement (Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, 2015; Joseph, 2013). Thus, Aboriginal cultures experienced vulnerability, discrimination, and cultural annihilation, powerless to resist binding laws of Canada (Chansonneuve, 2005; Joseph, 2013; Rennie, 2013).
11
Dangerfield (2016); Joseph (2013), The Manitoba Act implemented in 1870, legislated land transfers of certificate or script land title to “7,000 children of the Red River Métis (Para. 1).” Likewise, Rennie (2013), a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court Of Canada, illustrating government failure to uphold the agreement put forward in the Manitoba Act (1870). The Supreme Court Of Canada, finally ruling in favor of Metis people after 140 years of unrest. Thus, the possibility of re-transferring approximately 5,565 acres, including all of Winnipeg; to Metis peoples (Joseph, 2013; Rennie, 2013). However, Dangerfield (2016), disclosing ”Manitoba Métis Federation president David Chartrand and Canada’s Indigenous Affairs Minister, Carolyn Bennett,” signed a truce agreement in Ottawa, which ends this land dispute dated since, 1870 (Para. 1). Mr. Chartrand revealing, Metis people simply wanted; acknowledgement, inclusion, integration, and respect not ownership of Winnipeg.
Indian Residential Schools (I.R.S.)
Colonist introduced Indian Residential Schools (I.R.S.) (1892), described by the Aboriginal Healing Foundation (2001:5), and cited by Chansonneuve (2005), “as industrial schools, boarding schools, homes for students, hostels, billets residential schools with a majority of day students, or a combination of any of the above (p. 33).” I.R.S., allowing the Crown to assume ownership of Native children, partnering with churches to; accommodate, educate and assimilate Indigenous youths (Woods, 2013). The United Church of Canada (1994), as cited by Menzie (2010), were involved in transfers of 100,000, or more Indigenous children to I.R.S.; between 1840-and-1983. Studies by Chansonneuve (2005), disclosing colonization and I.R.S., resulted in present day Intergenerational traumatic health deficits triggering present-day gang violence for Indigenous youths in Canada.
Likewise, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996:3), states the intervention of I.R.S. to address social problems of assimilation led to painful family segregation, language dissociation, economic stratification, cultural, emotion, and spiritual deprivation, along with sub-standard education. Bebrube, 2015; Chansonneuve, 2005; Menzie, 2010; Totten, 2009; Woods, 2013, summarize colonial legislative social policies contributing to health deficits triggering criminogenic behaviors for Aboriginal youths in Canada.
Due to widespread reports of abuse and oppression occurring at I.R.S. (Chansonneuve, 2005; Johnson, 2012; Alfred, N.D), between 1969-and-1996, the Canadian government closed all existing residential schools. Colonization and Intergenerational trauma contributing to health deficits triggering poor decision-making and gang violence for Indigenous youths (Menzie, 2010; Totten, 2009).
12
The Canadian Welfare System Replaced Indian Residential Schools
Research by the Government of Canada (2018b), confirms that more than, 50% of children in the Canadian Welfare System, or foster care (2016), are of Indigenous background. Whilst, “Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), First Nations Child and Family Services (FNCFS) program funds prevention and protection services to support the safety and well-being of First Nations children and families on reserves (Para. 1).”
Finally, Siksika First Nations (1973), East of Calgary; followed by First Nation’s people (1990) (elders in Wabaseemoong); and Manitoba Aboriginal bands issued bans to prevent Children’s Aid Society, from entering reservation land and removing their children (National Post, 2014). Moffitt (1993); Durkheim and Simpson (1951), studies disclose family parentage and community integration is essential to the development of the child. Children forced to reside with non-Aboriginal parents, reporting devastating long-term cultural, and social health deficits (Johnson, 2012; Menzie, 2010; National Post, 2014). Empirical observations revealing colonial government social policy interventions correlated to present-day Intergenerational traumatic health deficits triggering criminogenic behaviors by Aboriginal youths in Canada.
Y.C.J.A. (2003), incarceration And Gang Violence
Department of Justice (2015a); Department of Justice (2016b), reports over-representation of Aboriginal youths in custody. Incidentally, The Young Offender Act (Y.O.A; 1984), introduced tough on crime initiative responsible for increasing incarceration rates among Indigenous youths. Further, Y.O.A was punitive lacking leniency related to Aboriginal youths’ prisonization. Therefore, prompting the introduction of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (Y.C.J.A., 2003), meant to promote leniency, integration and rehabilitation for non-violent youth offenders (Library of Parliament, 2012).
Friesen and O’Neil (2008), Aboriginal youth gangs were established in Canada since 1988, in Winnipeg with Indian Posse (IP). A prominent, high-ranking gang IP became contagious for Indigenous youths faced with economic deprivation spreading to; Saskatoon, Edmonton and the prairies. Soon, Manitoba had similar development of gang life known as; Manitoba warriors which expanded to Saskatchewan and Alberta (warriors). In response to IP and Manitoba warriors, Aboriginal youths formed a third gang during incarceration to protect themselves from attack; known as Native Syndicate. This gang developed from the inmate population through the process of prisonization; where inmates learn survival skills that are crime oriented (Public Safety Canada, 2017a).
Based on research by Preston, et al., 2012, female gang members also exist, but are small in numbers example; British Columbia (12%), Manitoba (10%), and Saskatchewan (9%).
13
Limitations
This study focuses on analysis of historic and present-day legislative social policy interventions correlating to Intergenerational traumatic health deficits and Aboriginal youths’ gang violence; identifying the rippling effect. However, this study theoretical perspective relies on sociological environmental challenges and does not consider data related to genetic correlation for Intergenerational traumatic health deficits.
Social changes implemented by the current Liberal government, appears to reflect positively on short and long-term environmental goals. However, it will take another 5-10 years before any substantial changes can be accounted for; when analyzing integration, lawful behavior, and developmental maturity of child-and-youth projection. Qualitative research to examine the effect of government legislative interventions; could provide insight into healthy outcomes for Indigenous communities. Similarly, accountability of government expenditure and promotion of Indigenous self-government need constant review; to determine long-term successes and failures.
What Works To Counteract-Intergenerational Traumatic Health Deficits
According to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of Canada (N.D); Taiaiake (N.D), Judge Murray Sinclair (Persons of Indigenous heritage) founder of the TRC stresses the plight of Aboriginal peoples spanning over 7 generations (the rippling effect). Life course theory is specific to growth and development that encourages protective environmental integration; focusing on child-youth-family-group-and-community from a wholistic perspective (Durkheim et al., 1951; Knoester & Haynie, 2005; Moffitt, 1993).
14
Government of Canada (March 23, 2018d), announced plans to replace INAC with “Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC);” working to alleviate socioeconomic stagnation plaguing Indigenous youths and manage health deficits.
Government of Canada, February 12, 2018a, improve environmental protection by; introducing clean water that ended eleven, Slate Falls Nations, drinking water advisory. The water treatment plant was funded by ISC ($11.6 million) and serves to promote healthy worry-free water availability for the entire community. Installation to fire hydrants and pump included to promote community fire protection. ISC, is working proactively with Aboriginal reserves to permanently end all water advisories (long-term) by March 2021. Providing reliable “wastewater infrastructure and ensuring proper operation and maintenance (Para. 4).” The 2016, fiscal budget allocated $1.8 billion (over 5 years), for reserves to ensure proper drinking water, wastewater infrastructure, and training of personal for water system operation and maintenance.
Further, Government of Canada (February 09, 2018c), Batchewana First Nation community received funding ($134,400.), “for IT modernization through its Community Opportunity Readiness Program, providing automation for current and future business (Para. 4 & 6).”
Government of Canada (2018e), passed another $1.94 billion (2016–2017) in funding through ISC, (over 5 years) for development of elementary and secondary education for First Nations children and youths. Moffitt (1993), a change in social integration could alter opportunity to engage in crime for Aboriginal youths; the rippling effect. Treatment is necessary to prevent health deficits, suicide and other criminogenic antisocial behaviors.
Best practice includes, but is not limited to (White and Jodoin, 2003):
Youth groups/councils, community individuals and caregivers, band and tribal councils, tribal administrators, Elders, agencies and organizations serving youth and families, mental health workers, addiction counselors, health nurses, social workers, government decision-makers, school administrators and teachers, community organizations and agencies, justice system, and police/RCMP members (p.3).
These methods of treatment emphasize intradisciplinary, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches to health care. Healthy individual Durkheim & Simpson (1951); Moffitt (1993), contributes to healthy child parenting skills, resulting in better decision-making, positive social integration and law-abiding skills to counteract Intergenerational trauma.
15
Study by Bonta, Wallace-Capretta, Rooney and Mcanoy (2002), focuses on harm reparation, integration and diversion from prison culture with restorative justice application to decrease recidivism. Determining, harm reparation is a key determinant in solution-based initiatives.
Likewise, Durkheim and Simpson (1951), explains an individual lacking positive social integration is more prone to developing antisocial behaviors. Hence more likely to engage in deviance, crime and gang violence.
Conclusion
The above literature research discussions focused on European colonization and Intergenerational traumatic health deficits triggering gang violence for Aboriginal youths in Canada. Concluding that European colonization and Intergenerational traumatic health deficits, are correlated to Indigenous youths’ gang violence in Canada; not necessarily a causation. Of the modest six percent of Indigenous youths in Canada not all youths of this ethnicity will engage in gang activity. However, the number of Aboriginal youths incarcerated is phenomenally high, and is not consistent with population analysis. More focus must be placed on authority figures representative of the Criminal Justice System, and practices of leniency towards Indigenous youths in Canada. Likewise, Canadian media over-emphasizing and sensationalizing Indigenous gang violence tends to also contribute to a ripple effect in the criminal justice system. Analysis of colonization (historical government legislative social policy interventions) reveals Intergenerational traumatic health deficits correlates to criminogenic behaviors (the rippling effect). The Indigenous youth population is experiencing disintegration with socio-economic hardships plaguing health outcomes. This literature review confirms Intergenerational trauma is a chronic debilitating health concern contributing to hydra-headed social triggers. These results are generalizable among Indigenous youths; First Nations, Innuit, and Metis communities.
16
Colonization witnessed the intervention of government legislative social policies, that were later abandoned and, or replaced because of long-term failures. Whilst, 21st. century European descendants continue blaming, discriminating, and promoting disintegration to compensate for historic harms.
Goals of providing theoretical analysis are to weed out a pattern for counteracting Intergenerational traumatic health deficits, correlating to Indigenous youths’ gang violence. Hence, determining government social policies can make the difference between positive, or negative environmental development. The Canadian Criminal Justice System needs to focus more on Indigenous rehabilitation and reconciliation rather than incarceration.
Whilst, theoretical perspective by sociologist Durkheim, focuses on long-term government social integration, combined with Moffitt’s life course theory highlighting relevance of child-youth-family-group-community integration to manage criminogenic behaviors. Evidence-based observations support compatibility of Durkheim and Moffitt’s theoretical analysis for the Indigenous youth population. Positive social integrated attachments, in childhood development promote healthy outcomes for protecting Indigenous youths.
Best practices identified to combat present-day Indigenous youths’ gang violence are: positive family and parenting skills, inclusion, integration, economic stability, education, employment, housing, with successful government legislative social policies. Whilst, positive child-youth, family, group-community solidarity, warmth, love and belonging, autonomy, restorative justice, community programs, re-establishing cultural identity with pride, and proactive law, or leniency replacing reactive interventions, contribute to strong vital Indigenous communities.
17
Acknowledgement
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the new Liberal Government of Canada and the Honorable Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for their dedication to Indigenous relations; making it possible for Indigenous youths to receive resources for meaningful social interventions. Particular thanks to Dr. Taiaiake Alfred for his decades of public and private works revealing the true plight of Indigenous Peoples. Many thanks to Humber Lakeshore Library who provided much of the resources for this research. Last, but not least thanks to Criminology professors at Humber Lakeshore Campus.
Conflict of interest
This is an independent research study, there are no conflict of interest.
References
1. Adelson, N. (2015). The Embodiment Of Inequality: Health Disparities In Aboriginal Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 96, S45-S61
2. Alfred, T. (N.D) Canadian Colonialism. http://www3.nfb.ca/enclasse/doclens/visau/index.php?mode=theme&language=english&theme=30662&film=&excerpt=&submode=about&expmode=1
3. Berube, K. (2015). Intergenerational Trauma Of First Nations Still Runs Deep. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health-advisor/the-intergenerational-trauma-of-first-nations-still-runs-deep/article23013789/
4. Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., Rooney, J., & Mcanoy, K. (2002). An Outcome Evaluation Of A Restorative Justice Alternative To Incarceration. Contemporary Justice Review, 5(4), 319-338. 10.1080/10282580214772
5. Canadian Institute Of Health Research (2007). Fetal Alcohol Syndronme And Fetal Alcohol Effect (archived). http://www.cihr-lrsc.gc.ca/e/4297.html
6. Chansonneuve, D. (2005). Reclaiming Connections: Understanding Residential School Trauma Among Aboriginal People. http://www.ahf.ca/downloads/healing-trauma-web-eng.pdf
7. Corrado, R. R., Kuehn, S., & Margaritescu, I. (2014). Policy Issues Regarding The Overrepresentation Of Incarcerated Aboriginal Young Offenders In A Canadian Context. Youth Justice, 14(1), 40-62. 10.1177/1473225413520361
8. Czyzewski, K. (2011). Colonialism As A Broader Social Determinant Of Health. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 2(1). https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/iipj/vol2/1/5/
18
9. Dangerfield K. (2016). Canada, Manitoba Metis Sign Deal To End Land Dispute From 1870. https://globalnews.ca/news/3069867/canada-manitoba- metis-sign-deal-to-end-land-dispute-from-1870/
10. Department Of Justice (2015a). A One-Day Snapshot Of Aboriginal Youth In Custody Across Canada: Phase II. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/yj-jj/yj2/p3.html#p3_1
11. Department Of Justice (2016b). The Evolution Of Juvenile Justice In Canada. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/ilp-pji/jj2-jm2/sec03.html
12. Durkheim, E. (1897/1951). Suicide. New York: Free Press
13. Durkheim, E., & Simpson, G. (1951). Suicide: A study In sociology. New York: Free Press
14. Friesen, J.T & O’Neill, K. (2008, May 9). Armed Posses Spreading Violence Across The Prairie Communities. The Globe And Mail, p. A16
15. Government Of Canada (February 12, 2018a). Federal Government And Slate Falls Nation Mark Significant Milestone As Ontario First Nation Lifts Eleven Long-Term Drinking Water Advisories. https://www.canada.ca/en/indigenous-servicescanada/news/2018/02/federal_governmentandslatefallsnationmark significantmilestoneaso.html
19
16. Government Of Canada (2018b). First Nations Child And Family Services. https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100035204/1100100035205
17. Government Of Canada (February 09, 2018c). Government Of Canada Supporting The Modernization Of Batchewana First Nation’s Information Technology Infrastructure. htps://www.canada.ca/en/indigenous-services-canada/news/2018/02/ government_of_canadasupportingthemodernization ofbatchewanafirstn.html
18. Government Of Canada (March 23, 2018d). Indigenous Services Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/indigenous-services-canada.html
19. Government Of Canada (2018e). Kindergartner To Grade 12 Education. https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100033676/1100100033677
20. Grekul, J. M., & LaBoucane-Benson, P. (2008). Aboriginal Gangs And Their (dis)Placement: Contextualizing Recruitment, Membership, And Status. Canadian Journal Of Criminology And Criminal Justice, 50(1), 59-82. 10.3138/cjccj.50.1.59
21. Howell, T., Auger, M., Gomes, T., Brown, F. L., & Young Leon, A. (2016). Sharing Our Wisdom: A holistic Aboriginal Health Initiative. International Journal Of Indigenous Health, 11(1), 111. 10.18357/ijih111201616015
22. Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (2015). A History Of Northern Affairs Canada. https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1314977281262/1314977321448
23. International Symposium On The Social Determinants Of Indigenous Health (2007). Social Determinants And Indigenous Health: The International Experience And Its Policy Implications. Adelaide, Report For The Commission On Social Determinants Of Health.
24. Jackson, N. (2015). Aboriginal Youth Overrepresentation In Canadian Correctional Services: Judicial And Non-Judicial Actors And Influence. https://www.albertalawreview.com/index.php/ALR/article/viewFile/293/291
25. Johnson S. (Mukwa Musayett) (2012). Failing To Protect And Provide In The “Best Place on Earth”: Can Indigenous Children In Canada Be Safe If Their Mothers Aren’t? https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/thesescanada/vol2/OSUL/TC- OSUL-1980.pdf
20
26. Joseph, B. (2018). The Script – What Is It And How Did It Affect Metis History. https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/the-scrip-how-did-the-scrip-policy-affect-metis-history
27. Knoester, C., & Haynie, D. L. (2005). Community Context, Social Integration Into Family, And Youth Violence. Journal Of Marriage And Family, 67(3), 767-780.doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00168.x
28. Kong, R. (2009). Youth Custody And Community Services In Canada 2007/08. Juristat 29(2): 1-25. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2009/article/10846-eng.pdf
29. Lewin, E. (2017). Using The “Ripple Effect” To Achieve Health Goals. https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellness/using-the-ripple-effect-to-achiev e-health-goals-20170612-gwp6tn.html
30. Library Of Parliament (2012). Current Publications: Social Affairs And Publications. https://lop.parl.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2008-23-e.htm#a6
31. Menzie, P. (2010). Intergenerational Trauma From A Mental Health Perspective. Native Social Work Journal. https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/thesescanada/vol2/OSUL/TC-OSUL-384.PDF
32. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited And Life-course-persistent Antisocial Behavior: A Developmental Taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674-701.doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.674
33. Morden, M. (2016). Theorizing The Resilience Of The Indian Act: Indian Act Resilience.Canadian Public Administration, 59(1), 113-133. 10.1111/capa.12162
34. National Post (2014). A Lost Tribe’: Child Welfare System Accused Of Repeating Residential School History. http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/a-lost-tribe-child-welfare-system-accused-of-repea ting-residential-school-history-sapping-aboriginal-kids-from-their-homes
35. Paradies, Y. (2016). Colonisation, Racism And Indigenous Health. Journal Of Population Research, 33(1), 83-96. 10.1007/s12546-016-9159-y
36. Preston, J. P., Carr-Stewart, S., & Bruno, C. (2012). The Growth Of Aboriginal Youth Gangs in Canada. Canadian Journal Of Native Studies, 32(2), 193.
37. Public Safety Canada (2017a). Youth Gangs In Canada: A Review Of Current Topic And Issues. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2017-r001/index-en.aspx#a09
38. Public Safety Canada (2018b). Youth Gangs In Canada: What Do We Know? https://www/publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt.rsrcs/pblctns/gngs-cnd/index-en.aspx
21
39. Rennie, S (2013). Supreme Court Sides With Metis In Historic Land Claim Dispute. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/03/08/supreme_court_sides_with_metis_in _historic_land_claim.html
40. Royal Commission On Aboriginal Peoples (1996). Volume 3: Gathering Strength.Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada
41. Sawchuk J. (2017). Social Conditions Of Indigenous Peoples In Canada. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/native-people-social-conditions/
42. Shulman, M., & Tahirali, J. (2016). Suicide Among Canada’s First Nations: Key Numbers. http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/suicide-among-canada-s-first-nations-key-numbers-1.2854899
43. Statistics Canada (March 22, 2016a). Youth Correctional Statistics In Canada, 2014/2015. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14317-eng.htm
44. Statistic Canada (2012b). Youth Correctional Statistic In Canada, 2010/2011. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11716-eng.htm#a4
45. The Canadian Press (2010). Native Gangs Spreading Across Canada. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/native-gangs-spreading-across-canada-.1873168
46. Totten, M. (2009). Aboriginal Youth And Violent Gang Involvement In Canada: Quality Prevention Strategies. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download? doi=10.1.1.543.9472&rep=rep1&type=pdf168
22
47. Truth And Reconciliation Commission Of Canada (N.D). Truth & Reconciliation. http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/index.php?p=10
48. Vice Staff (2014). The Aboriginal Gangs Of Winnipeg. https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/4w74eq/the-aboriginal-gangs-of-winnipeg-141
49. White J., & Jodoin N. (2003). Aboriginal Youth: A Manual Of Promising Suicide Prevention Strategies. https://www.cmho.org/documents/res-prom-stat-en.pdf
Inspiration & Direction
With any research one needs inspiration and direction, so I tunneled through seeking “The Indigenous Perspective.”
RE: One of the individuals that inspired me during my research..and this is after reading on and on —– an abundance of journal articles to compile the above thesis generated research during my forth year undergrad study in B.S. Sc.-Criminal Justice.
This morning I did a google search and noted that Taiaiake Alfred is a professor at the University of Victoria in Political Science..and or Indigenous governance, I went further to read a student feedback..and feel the need to say thanks to Professor Taiaiake Alfred for his work in humanity and human relations.
Dr. Alfred’s piece gave me direction even though it was not dated….…and we were urged to stay away from references that had no date, but because of the impact the article held for me when reading the writings of a person of Indigenous heritage…I felt this was enough to hold integrity on my reference list. I remember going back to the article several times and reading it again and again to get direction..how did I want this paper to flow what is the mood..I did not want to be overly blunt about the role of governments, because this research is based on historic revelation. Hence, I sort peace and unity by pulling the 2 pieces together..Indigenous survival and government intervention.
The short piece simply written, clearly one of Dr. Alfred’s earlier works, a little blunt, but understandably so!….What really got my attention was Professor Taiaiake Alfred mention of Indigenous coping strategies due to traumas of colonization..mere survival techniques…that the uninformed uses to stigmatize Aboriginals. My goals in this research were to reach crossroads where there are possibilities of recording findings, but also producing equally attributed empirical data on social circumstances, based on theoretical analysis supported by Intergenerational trauma.
Please see other works and links by Dr. Taiaiake Alfred:
Does Economic Status Encourage Crime?
What does the media report? Can compiled empirical data be generalized?
Link: Poverty & Crime
Joy-PSE: People & Society E-Publication 