Creating a victim-centric culture in correctional decision-making

Should offenders’ rights supersede those of victims? That is the question that is currently being explored by the House Public Safety Committee. While there is a need to find the right balance between the two, there needs to be greater emphasis placed on the needs and healing of victims. While there is recognition of victims in Canadian correctional legislation, it has not resulted in a culture that consistently assesses the impact that routine decisions may have on victims or their families from a perspective of ongoing physical or psychological harm. It is clear that correctional officials believe they have a victim-centred approach to delivering services in penitentiaries and through community supervision. However, there is a significant difference between a victim-centred approach versus a victim-centric approach. While a victim-centred approach focuses on the basic needs and preferences of victims during decision-making, a victim-centric focus is a more comprehensive approach that incorporates victims and their families' needs and preferences into every aspect of an organization’s culture, strategy, and operations. Both approaches are valuable for creating policies and practices that resonate with victims, but a victim-centric focus represents a broader commitment to prioritizing victim needs throughout the entire organization and into the day-to-day culture. The recent appearance by government officials has demonstrated that the focus on victims has taken a back seat while they spend their efforts justifying their processes and decisions under existing legislation. There is no question, that recent decisions regarding the Paul Bernardo transfer case can be justified under current laws and regulations, however, the focus should be on how to strengthen and reposition the needs and rights and victims in all correctional case management decision-making processes, especially as it relates to high-profile offenders. It is extremely disappointing that bureaucrats do not grasp the need to find cultural, legislative, and regulatory solutions that bring solace to victims or their families who have suffered some of the most heinous and horrific crimes one can imagine. There are a number of solutions that can be pursued that would minimally strengthen and prioritize victims in correctional case management decision-making processes and ultimately strengthen and move the overall culture in the right direction. As an example, amending Sec. 3 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which deals with the purpose of the correctional system, to include the following statement: “… by ensuring all offender case management decisions avoid any future physical or psychological harm to victims or their families” would signal a significant shift in how victims are considered in decision-making. Such a statement reinforces for correctional professionals the need to constantly assess the potential impact of all correctional decisions using a victim-centric approach that not only focuses on processes but overall culture and communications. It is also possible to strengthen various sections in the act, specifically Sec. 26, and accompanying Regulations, in regards to the sharing of information with victims. Specifically, reversing the onus that is placed on a victim to request information to one that mandatorily requires the Service to provide the information to victims or their families unless they request that the information not be provided, would again signal the importance of victim-centric approach and change the overall culture within the system. While the pain or grief of a victim or their family will never be eliminated by the sharing of information, it will provide at least some solace that the justice system in general, and specifically the correctional system, take their concerns and needs seriously. In terms of achieving an overall culture change, consideration should be given to amending Sec. 15.1 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which deals with offender correctional plans and their expected behaviours, to place the onus on the offenders to ensure that their behaviour does not create any further harm to victims or their families. This would help to reinforce with offenders that harm has been done and while they are working on their own behaviours they need to recognize the potential impact on victims of any decision they pursue while incarcerated or under community supervision. One can only hope that the review that is being conducted by the parliamentary committee will lead to recommendations that will help position a victim-centric approach within the correctional system particularly when case management decisions are being rendered. While the suggestions that have been put forth here are possible solutions to move the yardsticks, there still is the need for ongoing, fearless leadership within the existing legislative and regulatory framework to ensure all existing avenues are pursued that address the needs and healing of victims. Don Head spent 40 years, starting in 1978, in the public service working for federal, provincial and territorial governments in the field of Correctional Services at various operational, supervisory, managerial and executive levels. He served as commissioner of the Correctional Service Canada and served on deputy minister level committees that were actively involved in various aspects of public service delivery and was personally involved in leading several transformation initiatives within Canada and abroad in several countries including Hong Kong, the Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago, and Namibia. Head worked extensively with several unions in resolving workplace issues and negotiating contracts. He currently assist the Aleph Institute which is a non-profit Jewish organization dedicated to assisting and caring for the well-being of members of specific populations that are isolated from the regular community. The Hill Times