Changes in Native lifestyles reflected in jail statistics

Page 12

The Native lifestyle has changed in many ways over the last 100 years. A century ago, Metis and Indian people in Alberta were nomads and trappers. Occasionally, they lived near a central area, but much of their time was often spent on traplines and with small family groups, perhaps sleeping under the stars of a northern summer night. Today, many Natives will see the stars through the bars of a prison cell.

Native people comprised 26.5% of the people in provincial jails according to

the solicitor general's office. About 13% were status Indians; the rest were Metis and non-status. This is down marginally from 1976/77, when the rates were about 33%; 20% status and 13% non-status and Metis. Yet, the Native population in this province is near 5%. Does this mean that one-third of the crimes are committed by one twentieth of the people? Are Natives truly such a criminal society?

Is it indeed fair to judge Natives in terms of the white Canadian system of justice? Often, it seems that when you have a mostly provincially paid national police force enforcing federal laws and arresting people who will be judged and sentenced by a provincial, federal or supreme court judge, then incarcerated by federal or provincial correctional officers and paroled to private halfway houses, one wonders if anyone really knows what's happening.

"For convenience's sake we call it the Canadian justice system," says John Howard Society executive director, Howard Sapers, "when actually it doesn't meet any of the minimum requirements for a system. Often you've got competing goals and interests among the major players. Criminal justice is supposed to be for the goal of preventing crime, but people do that in different ways. Sometimes that one major goal gets pushed aside by bureaucratic or administrative needs - sometimes the method becomes more important than the end product."

The Canadian system becomes more inappropriate when it is understood that in the Native culture, Elders describe how arrests, judgment and punishment are all shared by the group or band rather than assigned to a few people within the band. Punishment is direct, and does not involve long expensive stays in jail.

Native Counselling director, Chester Cunningham, also sees problems between the Natives and the justice system, but thinks that Native Counselling has done a lot to change this through the Native courtworker system.

"I go back to when I started, " recalls Cunningham, "the Native incarceration rate was about 56%. With our courtworker program, it's between 18 and 23. Manitoba and Saskatchewan are still above 48%. I think that's what it is. The objectives of our organization are to lower the Native incarceration rate as well as to help the court understand the Native culture."

Much of the problem addressed by Native Counselling has to do with Natives simply not understanding what their rights are and how the system works, says Cunningham. Often Natives cannot understand court language or procedure; they would rather just admit to a crime and get out of court instead of coming back; often, they don't return after an original appearance, sometimes they consider a jail term a status symbol, and many times they can't pay fines.

"Prior to that, there was no communication," says Cunningham. "A guy would go through the whole process without knowing what happened to him."

Native Counselling can help in many cases, explaining to Natives in their own language what they must do and how to avoid future problems. Yet, they can't do everything, and Cunningham believes that they will not be able to lower the incarceration rate further without going into homes and working to change on a group or society level.

Prisoners, says Sapers, are often poorer and less well educated people. This led early sociologists to believe that "lower class" people commit crimes more than rich ones. In fact, these people do get in trouble for small crimes, don't know how to defend themselves, an cannot afford crack lawyers to get them lighter sentences or quick parole.

"It's the same way with the non-Native," says Cunningham. "Look at the gangs that were in New York City. They were from among the poor. Chicanos were the same way (as Indians); almost at the bottom. Lots of Native people will say "let's go out and get drunk and be somebody."

Natives, as a whole are poor. Like other poor people, they will end up in jail, and since a greater proportion of Natives are poorer than in white or non-Natives, maybe it's not surprising that they should be in jail.

Among the many valid programs supported by the provincial solicitor general is a "Correctional Center Visitation Program," which gives guided tours of jails to juveniles and adults. "This program attempts to inform young offenders of the harsh realities of incarceration," says the 1983/84 annual report. These harsh realities include single rooms, television, heat, clean clothes, baths, toilet facilities, perhaps nominal amount of money or work projects, three meals a day and exercise facilities. On a reserve, young people often have very few of these things. Harsh realities to the solicitor general's office can be a dream come true to a young Native offender. After all, the provincial government pays between $20,000 and $40,000 per person annually to keep offenders behind bars.

"Being up north, among some of the Natives, it's a status symbol to end up in trouble and be in jail," said Cunningham, "they find out the conditions in jail are better than home; they get clean sheets, 3 meals a day. I remember once a judge sentenced a guy I was counselling to 3 months. This guy was happy, getting a trip out from the government. I don't think the judges really have an idea. It's not the judges' fault. A lot of groups should tell the judges alternatives."

"The stories that you hear about people breaking into a church basement in October, hoping to get 90 days, so they can get room and board for the winter are tue," says Sapers. "It's sure better to spend the winter in the Peace River correctional centre than under the Peace River bridge.

"He's not a criminal case. He's a social welfare case. But then, the criminal justice system was quite able to take care of this guy. He's not on welfare. He's not among the unemployment rolls. He may be surplus labour if you agree with Marxist teachings. But he's accounted for under corrections. Do we need to have social control, to take away his freedom because he's poor, cold and hungry?"

Many of the things that Natives are in jail for are not reflective of criminal behaviour. Like non-Natives, they are imprisoned for murder, robbery, assault and break and entries. Yet, between 15 and 25% of major offenses have been alcohol related, including public intoxication and illegal conveyance. The non-Native rate is near four per cent. In addition, 18% of jailed Indians are there in default of fine payments, compared to 6.3% of non-Native prisoners.

In 1977, 36% of Native offenders had been jailed 5 or more times. Only 6.3% of the non-Natives shared this distinction. More Natives were third time or more offenders than not, while this was opposite for whites.

Native Counselling and the John Howard Society have made many suggestions for changing the system to work better for Natives and society as a whole. One major push in these suggestions has been towards the use of the Diversion Programs in keeping Natives and other people from already overcrowded jails. A second suggestion is that Native liaison workers and courtworkers be used more fully in assisting Natives with the criminal justice system.

The premise behind the Diversion Programs is that prisons serve only to punish convicted offenders - and only about 5% of offenders actually are convicted and sentenced. Prisons do not protect society; they often instruct people in hated and more efficient criminal behaviour; they do not deter people from committing crimes, they do not help the vctims, and they cost a lot of money to run (spending in federal and provincial correctional system increased from 293 million in 1961 to 3,824 million in 1980, according to Donald Demers of the federal solicitor general's office.

One area in the Diversion Program is fines. This was divided into four sections in the Native Counselling report to the Canadian Sentencing Commission. First, standardized fines of, for example, $200 for impaired driving are easier for a middle class person to pay than they are for a poorer worker. Fines should take income into account Secondly, fines are shared with the community in which court is held, rather than the community which suffered the crime. The victims should receive some fine revenue as a form of restitution.

Thirdly, sending people to jail for two weeks or a month for not paying fines is more expensive to the courts and to the offender than it's worth, and small claims court would probably be a better route. Finally, the Fine Options program, although it doesn't take money away from people on welfare and allows the community to benefit from a punishment, is not trusted by Natives. The program, says Native Counselling, should be expanded to allow more Natives to supervise the sentences.

Encouraging the involvement of more Native liaison people, from lay judges, through courtworkers, to Native special constables is intended to increase understanding between Natives and the criminal justice system. Native Counselling has proposed the use of courtworkers at all stages of the system, from arrest to release into society.

Native Counselling as well promotes awareness of and use of community members as lay judges and traditional Native practices such as mediation and banishment to provide real impact on Native offenders. Courtworkers should become aware of Native cultures, and court should be held in isolated communities, otherwise the system will remain remote and meaningless.

The solicitor general's office and the RCMP have