This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Robert A. Silverman
Department of Sociology University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
With a Foreword by
Chester Cunningham/ LL.D. (Hon.)
Butterworths Toronto and Vancouver
Aboriginal Peoples and Canadian Criminal Justice
Butterworths Canada Ltd. 1992
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (photocopying, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. Printed and bound in Canada by John Deyell Company Limited. The Butterworth Group of Companies Canada Butterworths Canada Ltd., 75 Clegg Road, MARKHAM, Ontario, L6G IAI and 409 Granville St., Ste. 1455, VANCOUVER, B.C. V6C 1T2 Australia Butterworths Pty Ltd., SYDNEY, MELBOURNE, BRISBANE, ADELAIDE, CANBERRA and HOBART Ireland Butterworths (Ireland) Ltd., DUBLIN New Zealand Butterworths of New Zealand Ltd., WELLINGTON and AUCKLAND Puerto Rico Equity de Puerto Rico, Inc., HATO REY Singapore Butterworths Asia, SINGAPORE United Kingdom Butterworth & Co. (Publishers) Ltd., LONDON and EDINBURGH United States Butterworth Legal Publishers, AUSTIN, Texas; BOSTON, Massachusetts; CLEARWATER, Florida (D & S Publishers); ORFORD, New Hampshire (Equity Publishing); ST. PAUL, Minnesota; and SEATTLE, Washington Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Main entry under title: Aboriginal peoples and Canadian criminal justice Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-409-90623-9 I. Native peoples - Canada - Criminal justice system. 2. Criminal justice, Administration of Canada. 1. Silverman, Robert A., 1943- . II. Nielsen, Marianne. KE7709.A26 1992 364.3' 497071 C92-093922-8 Project Editor: Alexander Schultz Editor: Julia Keeler Cover Design: Joseph Chin Production: Marlene Roopsingh Typesetting: Jay Tee Graphics Ltd. Cover Art: Arctic Heralds (1990) by Oshoochiak Pudlat, Cape Dorset. Reproduced with the kind permission of the West Baffin Eskimo Co-operative. PERTH,
The Use of Community Service Orders and Restitution in the North
Curt T. Griffiths and Allan L. Patenaude
INTRODUCTION In recent years, there has been increasing concern in Canada with crime and delinquency among Native Indian and Inuit peoples. This interest has been heightened by research findings indicating that, in many areas of the country, indigenous peoples experience high rates of arrest, encounter difficulties as defendants in the criminal courts, and are incarcerated in federal and provincial/territorial correctional facilities in numbers far in excess of their representation in the general population (Alberta Board of Review 1978; Depew 1986; Finkler 1982; McCaskill 1985; Morse 1976; Moyer et at. 1985). I Many observers have attributed the conflict that Native Indians and Inuit experience with the law to their subordinate political and socio-economic positions, a status resulting from their colonization and colonialization by Europeans and Canadian government policies which have exerted control over almost every aspect of Native life (Driben
and Trudeau 1983; Morrison and Wilson 1986; Paine 1977; Ponting and Gibbins 1980). A major consequence of this status, it is argued, is the "victimization" of indigenous peoples, as evidenced by pervasive poverty, high rates of unemployment and a reliance upon public assistance, low levels of formal education, high death rates from accidents and violence and increasing rates of family and community breakdowns (Griffiths, Yerbury, and Wearer 1987; Mayes 1978; Siggner 1979; Shkilnyk 1984).2 There is little doubt that the socioeconomic condition of many indigenous peoples plays a direct role in their involvement in criminal behaviour and with the criminal justice system. The excessive and hazardous use of alcohol and, particularly among youth, the abuse of solvents and inhalants, is also clearly related to conflict with the law (Barnes 1983; Jolly 1981). Increased pressures on the federal, provincial and territorial governments to address Native conflict with the law have resulted
Edited version of Curt T. Griffiths and Allan L. Patenaude, "The Use of Community Service Orders and Restitution in the Canadian North: The Prospects and Problems of 'Localized' Corrections" (Paper presented to the International Symposium on Restitution and Community Service Sentencing, Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 1988). Reprinted with permission. 225
PEOPLES AND CANADIAN
in policy and program initiatives designed to increase Native participation in the criminal justice process and the development of community-based programs and structures. These have included the creation of Native Special Constable programs operated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (R.C.M.P.) and the provincial police forces of Ontario and Quebec (Ontario Provincial Police and Surete du Quebec). Native Courtworker programs to provide assistance to Native defendants in the criminal courts, and Justice-of -the- Peace programs designed to return the administration of justice to the community level. There has also been in the past decade an expansion of community correctional services including diversion, comm uni ty service orders and restitution programs. A primary impetus for the creation of these programs was the National Conference on Native Peoples and the Criminal Justice System held in Edmonton, Alberta, in 1975. Among the recommendations of the conference, which was attended by federal, provincial and Native leaders, were that Native persons should be closely involved in the planning and delivery of justice services in their communities and that Native communities must be given the resources and authority to develop services which would address the specific and unique needs of Native offenders, victims and communities (Solicitor General of Canada 1975). Such a recommendation is in line with the notion of "community" as the focus for the delivery of localized correctional programs and services (Alper and Nichols 1981; Weafer 1986). In the Northwest Territories the concept of community becomes somewhat abstract due to the artificial nature of the communities or "settlements" as they are called by both governments and inhabitants alike. These settlements have for the most part only been in existence since the late 1950's and early 1960's rather than having been traditional communities. Within the artificial environment of the settlement there may exist several communities whose membership is based upon ethnicity (Native and non-
Native), occupation, employer or religion rather than the commonly-held belief in the homogeneity of Native communities (Patenaude 1987). Thus it is possible to argue the need for a high degree of "localization" in correctional programs throughout the North. There is considerable evidence, however, that the various initiatives undertaken over the past decade have had little impact on the delivery of justice services to Native people and that there has been no decline in the rates of arrest, conviction and incarceration. A number of problems have afflicted the Native Special Constable Program, the Native Courtworker Program and the Justice-of-thePeace Program, all of which have attempted to involve Native persons in the delivery of justice services. These have included a lack of training and on-the-job supervision, inconsistent funding support from government agencies and ministries, hostility toward Native criminal justice personnel from community residents, and a lack of community input and participation in the development and operation of such programs (Griffiths and Yerbury 1984; Obonsawin and Jolly 1980; Patenaude 1985; Weafer 1986). Further, in developing policy and programs, the federal, provincial and territorial governments have generally failed to consider the diversity of needs and availability of resources among Native Indian and Inuit communities, have failed to address the causal factors associated with Native conflict with the law, and have retained control over the structure and content of the programs (Havemann et al. 1984). Programs and services for Native communities have been undertaken without the benefit of baseline information on crime patterns and trends, the relative effectiveness of various types of criminal justice interventions in addressing problems of crime and delinquency, and the impact of cultural and linguistic diversity among Native communities on crime patterns or program delivery. Similarly, there has been no attempt to ascertain the potential for individual communities to become involved in a significant way in the
18: The Use of Community
Service Orders and Restitution
in the North
design and delivery of justice services. A major hindrance to Native involvement in justice delivery is the Canadian legislative framework. In a comparative review of the involvement of indigenous peoples in criminal justice in the United States, Australia and Canada, Keon-Cohen (1982) points out that while Native tribes in the U.S. have legal authority to establish and operate reservebased criminal justice systems, no such enabling legislation exists in Canada and the federal government has generally resisted attempts by Native Indian and Inuit groups and communities to develop and operate autonomous justice services and programs. This may be regarded as one aspect of government-Native peoples relations in Canada which only saw the enfranchisement of Natives with the right to vote in federal elections granted in 1960. If a series of enabling legislation were to be created which permitted either the creation of autonomous justice structures or a pluralistic criminal code such as that operated by Greenland (Schechter 1983) involvement of Natives in the criminal justice system would rise dramatically in Canada.
THE DEliVERY OF JUSTICE SERVICES IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
The Northwest Territories stretches across three time zones, and covers nearly three million kilometres and yet has a total population of only 53,000 residents, 22070of whom are Dene or Indian, 35% Inuit and the remainder non-Native. The Dene reside primarily in the Western Arctic below the tree line, while the Inuit live in communities in the Eastern Arctic, above the tree line. The vast distances between and relative isolation of the communities in the N.W.T. has significantly influenced the delivery of justice services while at the same time providing opportunities for the development of alternative, community-based justice services and programs. While nearly all of the communities in the
N.W.T. have resident R.C.M.P. officers, judicial services are provided by a system of circuit courts. Comprised of a Territorial or Supreme Court judge, court clerk, court reporter, defence lawyer and Crown prosecutor, the circuit courts travel to communities by plane on a regular basis. While many communities are served monthly, others are visited only once every three months or more infrequently if there are no cases to be heard or if weather or mechanical problems with the court plane prevent a scheduled visit. The circuit court system was developed during the 1950's in an attempt to bring "justice to everyman's door" (Sissons 1968). In recent years, increasing concerns have been voiced about the circuit courts, centring on the problems of large court dockets which result from the backlog of cases; time constraints on the court party which often preclude effective defence preparation and result in marathon court sessions, often lasting up to 12 hours; the lack of interpretative services for Indian and Inuit defendants who may speak or understand little or no English; and a lack of understanding of Indian and Inuit culture and traditions among white criminal justice personnel. Concerns have also been raised as to whether the dispositions provided under the Criminal Code are relevant to the communities and their residents (Crawford 1985; Griffiths and Patenaude 1988). A major problem confronting the judiciary in the N.W.T. is the lack of community-based alternatives for convicted offenders, necessitating their removal from the community to correctional centres located hundreds of miles away. Similar concerns with "outside" law have been voiced in regard to the delivery of correctional services and there has been an attempt in recent years to develop community-based programs and services. The Native Indian and Inuit communities of the Northwest Territories, Canada, provide unique cultural and geographical settings in which to examine the use of community service order and restitution programs as part of an overall community corrections strategy, The Northwest Territories has the highest rate
PEOPLES AND CANADIAN
of Criminal Code violations (21,245 per 100,000 population) and the highest rate of property offences (9,686 per 100,000 population) in Canada (Statistics Canada 1986). Recent information reveals that the "typical" offender in the N.W.T. is between the ages of 18 and 24, has committed a property offence or was attempting to obtain alcohol (N.W.T. Social Services 1986a). The small size (under 500 residents) of the majority of the 62 communities in the N. W. T. and their geographic isolation provide the ideal setting for the creation of community-based justice services, particularly as numerous communities have retained many of their customs and traditions. Upon first consideration, community service order and restitution programs would seem to be ideally suited to provide the foundation for an accommodation between traditional approaches to resolving disputes among community residents and the requirements of the Canadian criminal justice system which operates under a national Criminal Code. Over the past decade, there has been a rapid expansion of community-based corrections programs in the N.W.T., including probation services, fine option programs, volunteer probation officers and community service order and restitution programs. There has also been an increase in the number of contracts-for-services with community-based organizations, including the Native Friendship Centres, the Salvation Army and band and hamlet councils to operate fine option programs as well as victim-offender reconciliation programs (N. W .T. Social Services 1985). These and other initiatives are premised on the notion that communityoperated methods of social control and correction, utilizing "informal" mechanisms such as councils of Elders, may be more effective in controlling deviant behaviour and addressing the needs of the offender, the victim and the community (Finkler 1982). Community service order and restitution programs, in particular, have been viewed as a way to integrate traditional community values and customs into the delivery of justice services.
Recognition of the potential for increased community involvement in the N. W. T. is illustrated by the major goals for Social Services for the five-year period 1985-1990 which include a commitment to the increased use of community-based programs for offenders, the development of fine option and victim-offender reconciliation programs, and the increased involvement of communities in the operation of correctional services. As part of the growing community participation in justice delivery, many communities have formed Elders' committees, local justice and social welfare committees, alcohol committees and other forums for the identification of and response to community problems. Criminal justice and social service agencies have adopted an interagency approach which attempts to make use of local community resources. A variety of initiatives have been undertaken to facilitate community involvement with adult and youth offenders, including supervised and unsupervised probation, restitution, community service orders, and fine option. Victim-offender reconciliation programs, operated through the councils of Elders and youth committees, have also been formed in many communities. Personal service orders, which require youth convicted of offences to perform specified tasks for the victim, have also been developed, as well as various compensation and treatment/counselling schemes. The success of these various types of services has been mixed. An early report by Jubinville (1971) commented on the difficulties of bringing "Southern" programs to the North and this issue was subsequently raised and addressed by Bri t to n (1973), Fi nk ler (1981, 1982, 1983, J 985, 1986) and Wilkins (1972, 1973). These observers have identified the importance of encouraging the development of local programs and initiatives which are tailored to the specific needs of the individual community and which draw upon the resources in the community. These early reports and others viewed Indian and Inuit conflict with the law as a consequence of the adjustment/acculturation syndrome, social disorganization, the exten-
18: The Use of Community
Service Orders and Restitution
in the North
sion of traditional social behaviour; and viewed Indian and Inuit offenders as victims of structural discrimination in the administration of justice or as victims of sociostructural deprivation in the overall Canadian society (Griffiths and Jackson 1986). Similarly they identified the basic premises of Native justice as the restoration of order and the reduction of conflict by way of a system of torts. They viewed the adoption of strategies such as community service orders and restitution as functioning to increase community involvement in the delivery of justice services, while operating at the same time to keep youth and adult offenders in the community rather than sending them to outside correctional facilities. Community service orders and restitution programs were also viewed as a mechanism for mobilizing community participation and making the delivery of justice services more relevant to the individual communities and their residents.
THE USE OF RESTITUTION AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES Throughout the Northwest Territories most human services programs (except for education, nursing or law enforcement) are delivered by community social service workers who function as generic social workers and perform a wide range of tasks. In order to carry out their tasks these workers have been appointed under various territorial legislation as: social welfare officers (handling social assistance or welfare payments), child welfare officers (ensuring the intervention, immediate safety and continuing welfare of children in the community including the adoption process reports), social workers (to provide services to families and assistance to the elderly and handicapped). And in the justice arena they are appointed as youth workers (providing supervision and support to young offenders' under the provisions of the Young Offenders Act) and as probation officers (to adult offenders). In these latter
roles they provide traditional probation services such as the completion of presentence/pre-disposition reports, supervision and counselling of adults and youths on probation, including supervising and verifying the completion of community service orders. In addition to these tasks they provide the supervision of federal inmates released on parole or mandatory supervision programs in their community. The types of community service ordered by the courts vary by the level of court involved (Justice-of-the-Peace, Territorial or Supreme Courts), the nature of the offender and his/ her offence, and the resources of the community to permit the successful completion of the community service by the offender. It is interesting to note that the communitybased Justice-of-the-Peace Courts typically order a number of community service hours to be completed rather than a specific type of service to be completed whereas the circuitbased Territorial and, to a lesser degree, Supreme Courts commonly specify the types of community service program to be completed. These orders may include: providing so many pounds of fish or meat to the community freezer, working with young people to show them the results of crime, showing young persons the traditional way of life by providing so many pelts or skins, clearing of snow away from the homes of the elderly or infirm and community beautification (garbage pick-up or clearance). These types of orders are usually imposed when the offence is minor in terms of the criminal justice system (such as property or mischief offences) but have been ordered in some major offences (assault or sexual assault) with varying degrees of success. The suitability of the offender for such programs is commonly based upon the positive recommendation of the community social service worker acting as a probation officer and the local resources which community social service workers identify to the trial judge and counsel. During the 1980-1986 period, in the Baffin Region of the Northwest Territories, for example, there was a total of 16,355 hours of community service ordered which was to
PEOPLES AND CANADIAN
be completed by 253 adult offenders (43.4070 of a total of 582 offenders). While the average number of hours per offender was 64.6 hours, it was revealed that 50, 75, 100 and 125 hours were the typical lengths of community service orders with the maximum of 200 hours having been ordered (Government of the N.W.T. 1986). Although such dispositions were often in conjunction with other probation conditions or incarceration they showed the willingness of the courts to return to the community as the environment where the behaviour of offenders could best be corrected. Restitution orders are monitored by the clerk of the Territorial or Supreme Court (as appropriate) who informs the local Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachment and the probation officer when the restitution agreement, which is generally included as a condition of probation, has been fulfilled. As of 1986, 38070 of the community social service workers in the N.W.T. were Indian or Inuit and were working in their home communities." The range and types of tasks performed by the probation officers result in their commanding a great deal of power within the community. In the N.W.T., community service orders and restitution are generally included as conditions of a probation order. The use of these two strategies is designed to ensure that the community receives some type of tort from the offender. Since the implementation of the fine option program, the courts have an additional method of ensuring that the communities receive something back from the offender. This is done by converting the amount of the fine into a specific number of community service hours which are then monitored by a community agency. Despite the initial optimism that surrounded the development and implementation of community corrections programs, including community service order and restitution, in the N.W.T., there are several difficulties that have hindered their potential effectiveness. These include the following: 1. The dependency of Dene Indian and
Inuit communities on "outside" government to initiate, fund, and support community corrections programs. Perhaps the greatest obstacle to the successful operation of restitution and community service order programs in the N.W.T. is the dependency of communities on the territorial and federal governments. These programs are often regarded as typical examples of outside initiatives imposed upon a dependent people. Community residents are generally not involved in the design and implementation of community service order and restitution programs any more than their counterparts in the more urbanized, Southern areas of the country. Griffiths and Patenaude (1988) have argued that this dependency is a consequence of the political and legislative approach historically assumed by the federal and provincial governments toward indigenous people. This dependency, and the extent to which it hinders community initiative, is perhaps best illustrated by the difficulty that is often encountered in securing the interest and participation of community residents without compensation being provided by government. Residents are often unwilling to serve as volunteer probation officers and to supervise and counsel minimal-needs offenders or to serve on community advisory committees unless compensation is provided. The commitment by governments toward funding community level programs appears to be concentrated during the last quarter of the fiscal year as monies which were released in a miserly manner during earlier months are then released freely in an attempt to end that spending year without a budget surplus. Competition often exists among agencies to secure the services of "paid volunteers" and agencies unable or unwilling to provide an appropriate level of compensation often lose the services of residents to other committees. 2. The conflict between traditional Dene Indian and Inuit notions of conflict resolution and those represented by community service order and restitution programs. Another obstacle to the successful opera-
18: The Use of Community
Service Orders and Restitution
in the North
tion of community service order and restitution programs is the conflict between the traditional systems of customary law which served to resolve disputes and maintain order and the Euro-Canadian framework of criminal justice within which community corrections programs are delivered. In contrast to Western justice systems which are based on the adversarial system, Indian and Inuit law relied on consensus and personal offences were viewed as transgressions against the individual rather than the community. Sanctions were imposed on an individual-toindividual level, rather than the response and sanction emanating from the collective. As Griffiths and Patenaude (1988, 12) point out: "The traditional system of dispute resolution which existed among the Native Indians and Inuit in the N.W.T. is in stark contrast to the adversarial Euro-Canadian system which places primary emphasis on deterrence and punishment and the notion that the response to offensive behaviour should come from the collective or those in positions of authority acting on behalf of the collective." As currently delivered, community service order and restitution programs are administered by government agencies or by community representatives on behalf of the government, rather than being closely integrated into the traditional values and customs of the communities. A basic philosophical difference between the traditional values and the modern applications of these programs is found in the traditional Native belief in the individual as the focus of attention rather than the government view of the state as the primary focus. The traditional applications of restitution were aimed at reparation to the injured party; for example, broken or lost equipment would be repaired or replaced by the person responsible for that condition and thus the victim was recompensed and order restored. The two involved parties would have face-to-face contact with each other. The modern application of restitution has this contact removed and the state, in the form of the criminal courts, intervenes between the two parties. The offender is now ordered to pay restitu-
tion in the form of cash to the clerk of the court in Yellowknife (the territorial capital) for eventual repayment to the victim rather than the provision of services directly to the victim. This method may be a contributing factor in the community becoming dependent upon external rather than internal resources to deal with its problems. An interesting observation in the Eastern Arctic revealed that this type of disposition was commonly ordered when the offender was Native and the victim either non-Native or an institution such as the Hudson's Bay Company. The community service and victimoffender reconciliation programs are more informal and accepted by the community to a greater degree than are restitution programs. Within the Native community the completion of community service is regarded as restoring order in the traditional sense. While not directly recompensing the victim this method is regarded as an opportunity for offenders to give something back to the whole community (balancing or restoring order) and thus earn their way back into the community. The non-Native community often regards this type of disposition with disdain by remarking that the offender "got off easy," that the number of community service hours will not likely be completed and that the victim was not considered in either the sentencing process or the disposition. Victim-offender reconciliation programs are in their infancy in their modern, as opposed to traditional, applications in the North. There have been efforts by the territorial government to develop both guidelines and standards for the effective operation of this voluntary program as well as motivation from within the different communities in each settlement. From a traditional standpoint this type of program occurs in those communities which have maintained a high degree of cultural integrity such as Arctic Bay or Igloolik. The primary vehicles to carry these programs into the community are the Elders' committees ("lnumaariit" in lnuktitut, the language of the Inuit) and the community social service worker. The cultural restrictions on direct confrontation are com-
PEOPLES AND CANADIAN
plied with through the use of third-party intermediaries, public confessions (although the use of this method is more historic than contemporary) and other similar methods. The constraints under which this program labours are the willingness of the involved parties to participate, the presence or not of community resources such as the Elders' committee and the previous time commitments of the community social service worker. Rather than occurring between the Native and non-Native communities as restitution does, this type of program appears to be exclusive to members of the Native community due, in part, to its voluntary and informal nature, which is complementary to traditional values, and to the lingering resentments often held by many non-Natives who were victimized. The youth justice system appears to be more facilitating in its desire to bring these three programs into general use. Where the victim appears to be forgotten by the adult criminal justice system the Youth Court may order personal rather than community service to be completed by the offender. This approach reduces the role of the state as an intermediary between the victim and the offender and combines elements of both restitution (which may still be ordered) and victim-o ffender reconciliation programs. Each of these separate dispositions is legislated under the Young Offenders Ac! for national application yet the authors who drafted it appear to have taken into account individual and community differences and were more sensitive to those differences and competing interests than were their counterparts in the adult criminal justice system. 3. The operational difficulties of developing and maintaining community service order and restitution programs in N.W.T. communities. In discussing the operation of probation services, for example, Patenaude (1985) identified several problem areas contributing to
low levels of service delivery. These included (I) a lack of adequate supervision of probationers in certain communities due to an excessive workload or poor performance by personnel; (2) staffing difficulties which resulted in unfilled community social service worker positions; (3) inadequate enforcement of probation by the community social service workers; and (4) inadequate training of personnel. Another difficulty has been a lack of knowledge or understanding among community-based programs and services. There also appears to be a continuing lack of understanding among community residents as to the purpose and objectives of community-based programs. Hostility may be directed toward individuals involved in the delivery of community corrections services, particularly in situations where personnel are required to supervise relatives or family members, often resulting in family and community pressures as the worker attempts to reconcile the requirements of the criminal justice system while at the same time maintaining family relationships and obligations. Community social service workers are often reluctant to confront errant probationers and to enforce the conditions of probation orders (Patenaude 1985). This is due at least in part to a lack of training, a cultural prohibition among the Dene Indian and Inuit which forbids or severely restricts direct person-toperson confrontation, and the sex-role differentiation which still persists among Northern Natives. An additional operational problem encountered by the community service order programs is the lack of worthwhile community service projects in many of the communities. As Patenaude (1985, 22) has observed: "There are, after all, only so many times per week that snow can be cleared from the stairways." Federal and territorial agencies and ministries have also experienced difficulties in their efforts to ensure that the community workers maintain proper records and complete the required paperwork.
18: The Use of Community Service Orders and Restitution in the North
IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS AND RESTITUTION: TOWARD "LOCALIZED" CORRECTIONS To date, the experience of community service orders and restitution programs in the communities of the N.W.T. can be viewed as a missed opportunity to develop community-based alternatives relevant to the needs of offenders, victims and communities while at the same time meeting (he requirements of the Canadian Criminal Code. Rather than utilizing the isolation and small size of the N.W.T. communities and the traditional customs of the Indian and Inuit residents, community service order and restitution programs have been designed and delivered by outside agencies and ministries with the result that many of the same problems that afflict community corrections in the more urban areas of the country, e.g., lack of community input and participation, are evident in the N.W.T. communities as well. Community service order and restitution programs, along with other community-based corrections strategies, will only be effective if they are incorporated into a larger framework of "localized" corrections. As outlined by Griffiths (1988), localized corrections involve communities and their residents, rather than government agencies and ministries, assuming primary responsibility for identifying and addressing the needs of offenders and victims. Localized corrections attempt to avoid the "top-down" model of program and service delivery, whereby corrections services are developed by outside agencies and then located in communities and staffed by line level personnel and in which control over program policy and operation, as well as fiscal resources, remains with government. Among the principles of localized corrections is a clear definition of who and what is the community, a recognition that each community will have unique needs as well as differential resources that can be mobilized to address these needs. Further, localized corrections involve the decentralization of policy
and program decision making and direct community input into the design and delivery of corrections services and programs. This includes incorporating elements of traditional social control into programs whenever possible. An example of this may be seen in the Village Arbitrator Program operating in rural Thailand (Watanavanich 1988) which affirms many of the conditions mentioned herein concerning the uniqueness of the settlements, the cultural needs of the inhabitants, and the localized requirements of justice programs as being similarly present in that country. It is therefore contended that transnational studies may reveal the need for community involvement and pluralistic criminal justice systems appropriate to the needs of both Native peoples and the dominant society. The failure to address the current problems which afflict community service order and restitution programs in the N. W. T. and to restructure the framework within which correctional policy and programs are delivered will ensure the limited effectiveness of these potentially beneficial programs. It will also continue the cycle of dependency in which community residents look to outside agents for the solution to community problems and will continue the slow erosion of traditional and customary approaches to conflict resolution and restoring order which have proven themselves to be far more effective than the Euro-Canadian approaches.
I. Native Indians and Inuit comprise approximately 2070of the total Canadian population, although they are unevenly distributed across the country in terms of their percentage of the territorial and provincial populations, ranging from 60070 in the N.W.T. and 20070 in the Yukon to 60/0 in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and 3070 in Alberta and British Columbia. 2. Caution must be exercised in using the term "Native Indian" and in assuming homogeneity among Native Indian and Inuit people. Native peoples in Canada are distinguished by
PEOPLES M·m CANADIAN
their legal status. Status Indians, comprising nearly 60070 of the Native population, are people registered under the federal Indian Act. There is, however, considerable diversity among the 573 recognized Indian Bands in terms of their culture and social and political organization. Non-status Indians, comprising approximately 15070of the Native population, are those who identify themselves as Native, but are not registered under the Indian Act. Metis, who represent approximately 20070 of the Native population, are the descendants of mixed Indian and European ancestry, while the Inuit (Eskimos) are a distinct cultural group who reside in the Northwest Territories, Labrador and in Northern Quebec and represent 5070of the total Native population. The term "Native" is often used to describe all of these groups. 3. The Department of Social Services, Government of the N.W.T., aims to make this number more representative of the population at large with a target of 52070Native staff by 1990 (N. W. T. Social Services 1986b).
Review oj Current Issues. Ottawa: Solicitor General of Canada. Driben, P., and R. S. Trudeau .. 1983. When Freedom Is Lost: The Dark Side oj the Relationship be/ween Government and the Fort Hope Band. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Finkler, H. W. 1981. The BaJJin Correctional Centre, Frobisher Bay, N. W. T.: A Review oj Current Programs and Alternatives. Ottawa:
Indian and Northern Affairs. ____ . 1982. "Corrections in the Northwest Territories, 1967-81, with a Focus on the Incarceration of Inuit Offenders." Canadian Legal
Aid Bulletin 5:27-38.
. 1983. "Legal Anthropology in the Formation of Correctional Policies in the Northwest Territories Canada." Paper presented to the Symposium on Folk Law and Legal Pluralism, XI i.C.A.E.S., Vancouver, B.C., August. ____ . 1985. "Inuit and the Criminal Justice System: Future Strategies for Socio-Legal Control and Prevention." in Etudes Inuit Studies 9(2): 141-52. ____ . 1986. "Community Participation in Socio-Legal Control: The Northern Context." Paper presented to the Knowing the North Conference, The Boreal Institute, University of Alberta, November 1986. Government of the Northwest Territories. 1986. ___
Alberta Board of Review. 1978. Provincial Courts.
Probation and Parole Intake/Discharge Data. Native People in the Administration oj Justice in the Provincial Courts oj Alberta. Edmonton, Alta.: Attorney General Alper, B. S., and L. T. Nichols.
Alberta. 1981. Beyond
the Courtroom: Programs in Community Justice and Conflict Resolution. Lexington, Mass.:
Lexington Books. Barnes, G. E. 1983. Northern Sniff
The Epidemiology oj Drug Use among Indian, White and Metis Adolescents. Ottawa: Health and Wel-
fare Canada. Britton, B. J. 1973. Baffin Correctional Centre - Ikajurtauvik, Department of Social Development. Government of the N.W.T. Frobisher Bay, N.W.T. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. 1986. Canadian Crime Statistics, 1985. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Crawford, A. 1985. "Outside Law and Traditional Communities in the Northwest Territories." Available from the Northern Justice Resource Centre, Simon Fraser U niversi ty, Burnaby, B.C. Depew, R. 1986. Native Policing in Canada: A
Yellowknife, N.W.T.: Corrections and Information System, Department of Social Services. Griffiths, C. T. 1985. Circuit and R ural Court Justice in the North. Burnaby, B.C.: The Northern Justice Resource Centre, Simon Fraser U niversi ty. ____ . 1988. "Community-Based Corrections for Young Offenders: Proposal for a 'Localized' Corrections." International Journal oj Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 12: 219-28. Griffiths, C. T., and M. A. Jackson. 1986. "Native Overrepresentation in the Criminal Justice System." School of Criminology, Simon Fraser U ni versity, Burnaby, B. C. Griffiths, C. T., and A. L. Patenaude. 1988. "Application of the Criminal Law to Native Indians and Inuit in the Northwest Territories, Canada." Comparative Law Review. Griffiths, C. T., and J. C. Yerbury, 1984. "Native and Criminal Justice Policy: The Case of Native Policing." Canadian Journal oj Crimi" nology 26: 147-60. Griffiths, C. T., J. C. Yerbury, and L. F. Wearer, 1987. "Canada '5 Natives: Victims of Socio-
18: The Use of Community
Service Orders and Restitution
in the North
Structural Deprivation?" Human Organization 46:277-82. Havemann, P., K. Couse, L. Foster, and R. Matonovich. 1985. Law and Order for Canada's Indigenous People. Regina, Sask.: School of Human Justice, University of Regina. Jolly, S. 1981. Preliminary Report on a Survey of Fine Defaulters Incarcerated in the Kenora District Jail for Provincial Offences. Toronto: Ontario Native Council on Justice. Jubinville, R. (Chair). 1971. Correction Services in the Northwest Territories. Report of the Study Committee. Yellowknife, N.W.T.: GNWT Department of Social Development and Solicitor General of Canada. Keon-Cohen, B_A_ 1982. "Native Justice in Australia, Canada and the U.S.A.: A Comparative Analysis." Canadian Legal Aid Bulletin 5: 187-258. Loree, D. J. 1985. Policing Native Communities. Ottawa: Canadian Police College. McCaskill, D. 1985. Patterns of Criminality and Correction among Native Offenders in Manitoba: A Longitudinal Analysis. Saskatoon, Sask.: Prairie Region, Correctional Service of Canada. McReynolds, K. 1972. Situational Appraisal of Regional Correctional Need. Willowdale, Ont.: K. L. McReynolds Associates. ___ . 1973. Baffin Region Corrections Programme. Thornhill, Ont.: K. L. McReynolds Associates. May, P. A. 1982. "Contemporary Crime and the American Indian: A Survey and Analysis of the Literature." Plains Anthropologist 27: 225-38. Mayes, R. 1979. "The Creation of a Dependent People: The Inuit of Cumberland Sound, N.W.T." Ph.D. diss., Department of Geography, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec. Morrison, R. B., and C. R. Wilson. 1986. Native Peoples - The Canadian Experience. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Morse, B. W. 1976. "Native People and Legal Services in Canada." McGill Law Journal 22:504-40. Moyer, S., F. Kopelman, C. LaPrairie, and B. Billingsley. 1985. Native and Non-Native Admissions to Provincial and Territorial Correctional Institutions. Ottawa: Solicitor General of Canada. Northwest Territories. Department of Social Services. 1985. NWT Plan in Corrections - Goals and Objectives, 1985-87. Yellowknife, N.W.T. ____ . 1986a. Correctional Centre Admission
Statistics, 1980-1985. Yellowknife, N.W.T.: Corrections Information System. ___ . 1986b. Affirmative Action Plan. Yellowknife, N.W.T. Obonsawin, R., and S. Jolly. 1980. Review of the Ontario Native Courtworker Program: Final Report to the Ontario Native Council on Justice and the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres. Toronto: Ontario Native Council on Justice. Paine, Robert, ed. 1977. The White Arctic: Anthropological Essays on Tutelage and Ethnicity. St. John's, Nfld.: Institute of Social and Economic Research, Memorial University of New found!and. Patenaude, A. L. 1985. Community Corrections, 1986-1988 Expenditure Plan, Baffin Region, N. W. T. lqaluit, Probation Services, Baffin Region, N.W.T. ___ . 1987. "Kingait: Culture, Change and Criminal Justice in Cape Dorset, Northwest Territories." Available from the Northern Justice Resource Centre, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. Ponting, J. R., and R. Gibbons. 1980. Out of Irrelevance: A Socio-Political Introduction to Indian Affairs in Canada. Toronto: Butterworths, Schechter, E. J. 1983. "The Greenland Criminal Code and the Limits to Legal Pluralism." Etudes Inuit Studies 7:79-93. Shkilnyk, A. 1984. A Poison Stronger than Love: The Destruction of an Ojibway Community. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Siggner, A. J. 1979. An Overview of Demographic, Social and Economic Conditions among Canada's Registered Indian Population. Ottawa: Indian and Inuit Affairs Program. Sissons, J. 1968. Judge of the Far North - The Memoirs of Jack Sissons. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Solicitor General of Canada. 1975. Report of the National Conference of Native People and the Criminal Justice System - Native Peoples and Justice. Ottawa. Statistics Canada. See Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Van Dyke, E. 1982a. "Between Worlds: Problems in Cultural Transition." R.C.M.P., Yellowknife, N.W.T. ___ . 1982b. "Cultural Differences in Family Structures: A Practical Approach." R.C.M.P., Yellowknife, N.W.T. Watana vanich, P. 1988. Personal correspondence
PEOPLES AND CANADIAN
with author (P. W. to C. T. Griffiths). Bangkok: Thammasat University. Weafer, L. F. 1986. "The Yukon Justice of the Peace Program" M.A. thesis. School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, RC. Wilkins, C. 1972. Corrections in the Northwest
Territories. Department of Social Development. Government of the N.W.T. Yellowknife, N.W.T. ___ . 1973. Community Corrections Centre. Department of Social Development. Government of the N.W.T. Yellowknife, N.W.T.