Evidence-based criminal justice policy for Canada: An exploratory study of public opinion and the perspective of mental health and legal professionals.

Abstract

Increasingly, scholars are identifying the need for evidence-based justice policy. There has been, and continues to be, changes in Canadian criminal justice acts, such as Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Community Act (2012). Bill C-10 amended several criminal justice acts, including the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2002), Criminal Code (1985, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (1996), and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (1992). The amendments introduced by Bill C-10 were made in the name of public safety, yet according to empirical evidence, the potential ramifications of these changes appear to counter these notions. The purpose of the current research was to compare public opinion with the opinions of mental health and legal professionals prior to and after the presentation of evidence, including academically recognised social science research, to examine whether exposure to empirical evidence would change public opinions of justice policy. Participants consisted of 2 groups: (a) members of the Canadian public, and (b) mental health and legal professionals who work internationally with adults or youth who are either currently involved with, or at risk of becoming involved with, the criminal justice system. Quantitative analyses demonstrated that opinions from the general public were varied, but became more similar to the perspectives of mental health and legal professionals after the presentation of empirical evidence. Qualitative analyses offered insight into participant decisions and concerns. The results support the paradigm shift to evidence-based justice policy and the importance of educating Canadians in order to increase awareness of Canadian policies and social science literature.

The National Trajectory Project of Individuals Found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder in Canada

“…This legislative controversy in addition to the recent tough on crime policy trends 6 are open access likely to have significant effects on vulnerable populations, such as people living with a mental illness, 7 and highlight the disconnect between evidence, public discontent, and current legislative policies in Canada. 10 In this special section of The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, we present the initial results of the National Trajectory Project. 11 The National Trajectory Project investigated the trajectories of people found NCRMD in the 3 most-populated Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec), each of which has a distinct organizational structure of forensic mental health services and varying general crime statistics.…”

Exploring Inconsistencies in the Interpretation of Canada’s Section 161 Order for Sexual Offending

“…One possible manipulation could involve providing participants with either the original s.161 or a version modified to reduce ambiguity, and assessing whether this has an impact on objective or subjective enforcement decisions. Based on past research suggesting that exposure to empirical evidence has the potential to cause at least short-term changes in Canadian's opinions on criminal justice policies (Bousfield, Cook, & Roesch 2014), future studies could also explore the impact of providing participants with information regarding the rate of sexual recidivism and the efficacy of treatment interventions compared to risk management strategies. Ideally, this would help to inform strategies aimed at reducing negative and stigmatizing public attitudes toward PCSO, which may ultimately contribute to the prevention of both initial sexual offences and recidivism (Knack, Winder, Murphy, & Fedoroff 2019).…”

Enhanced interrogations: The expanding roles of psychology in police investigations in Canada.

“…Contributing some of the most important advances in both research and practice, Canada has long been a leader in the field of forensic psychology (see Bloom, Webster, Hucker, & De Freitas, 2005; Bousfield, Cook, & Roesch, 2014; Chong & Connolly, 2015; Dalby, 2014; Helmus, Babchishin, Camilleri, & Olver, 2011; Ogloff, 2004; Porter, 2004; Porter & Wrightsman, 2014). Much of the ground-breaking research in major areas of forensic psychology, including eyewitness memory, psychopathy, victimology, criminal behaviour, rehabilitation, and risk assessment has been, and continues to be, conducted in Canadian institutions.…”