Organization: The Correctional Investigator Canada
Year: 2024
Month: June
Request Number: A2024-0003
Request Summary: I am requesting copies of any and all of the evidentiary or experiential data used by the Correctional Investigator to draw the conclusive statements cited in this request. Any raw data relied upon by the CI during the course of their research and investigation into the cities listed below is also requested. All cites are from ANNUAL REPORT 2017-2018 In this cite I am particularly in any data making reference to the role of lifers in POPS as peer support. Best Practice Peer Offender Prevention Service (POPS) • The Peer Offender Prevention Service (POPS) was created at Stony Mountain Institution (SMI) in December 2009 in response to the deployment of the Institutional Mental Health Initiative. It is a confidential, peer-based program that provides SMI with comprehensive crisis intervention, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. • POPS is offered throughout the institution, servicing segregation, all three levels of security (minimum, medium, maximum) and all sub-populations. At any given time, SMI has three to four offenders (typically “lifers”) occupying a POPS peer support role. “It’s a great opportunity for me as a POPS to be called to different situations involving inmates, who are at a loss and need somebody to speak with. When they talk, sometimes there’s a connection, a bond, and we can discuss the situation and make them feel at ease.” – Testimonial • Training for POPS is facilitated by a range of community-based agencies and has a wide focus, including anxiety, depression, suicide prevention, general mental health, trauma, etc. • By offering a credible and reliable response for offenders requiring both temporary and ongoing supports, POPS assist institutional clinicians and operational staff. • POPS has helped minimize attempts of self-harm and their engagement has assisted vulnerable offenders to remain in general population. The following cites refer to the Two-Year ‘Rule’ with regard to those serving life as a minimum sentence. The entire data of the research and investigation into these cites is of interest and requested. The Two-Year ‘Rule’ and the Secure Units In the late 1990s, following media coverage of certain high profile cases, political direction was given that any offender convicted of first or second degree murder in Canada should serve the first two years of their sentence in a maximum security institution. CSC responded by adjusting the Custody Rating Scale so that classification at intake would essentially align with government direction.65 This came to be known as the “Two-Year Rule.” The Office has often expressed concern with this ‘rule’ since it was first introduced, as a one-size fits all approach does not adhere to the principles of individualized risk assessment and classification outlined in the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations.66 During the reporting year, my Office received written confirmation from National Headquarters that the so-called ‘two-year rule’ does not officially exist in policy or law. Historically, CSC has responded to my Office on this matter by outlining that correctional policy provides for an exception that can be applied in certain cases.67 I am left to question the necessity of having an exception to a ‘rule’ that purportedly does not exist. In any case, the application of this “rule” is especially concerning, given that it means women convicted of murder will be placed in the Secure Unit (maximum security) at the regional women’s facilities to serve their first two years of a life sentence. Last year, my Office found that the Secure Units were a gender based discriminatory regime that, like the two-year “rule,” also exists outside the bounds of law. Both practices should be repealed or rescinded. 19. I recommend repealing of two related measures that exist outside the law: the two-year “rule” and the discriminatory movement levels system for women classified as maximum security. The Two Year ‘Rule’ and Impact • A federally sentenced woman was convicted 15 years after the offence, and given a life sentence for second-degree murder. • The offence history involves domestic violence, and this was the individual’s first federal sentence. • Following classification, she was admitted to a maximum security Secure Unit. • Several months later, the Case Management Team and Warden requested an exception, as her risk was deemed assumable in a medium security setting. • My Office also recommended that she be reclassified to medium security as she was following her correctional plan and participating in programs. • The Regional Deputy Commissioner agreed to review a previously denied decision, which stated that the offender’s risk factors had not been addressed sufficiently to justify an exception to the policy whereby those serving a sentence for murder must serve the first two years in maximum security. • We again recommended that this decision be reviewed, and are awaiting a final decision at the regional level. • The woman had attempted to grieve the initial decision, but was further hindered by a cumbersome and protracted internal grievance system.
Disposition: All disclosed
Number of pages: 8