NCJ Number
112496
Date Published
1988
Length
21 pages
Annotation
This chapter discusses the Canadian application of the American principle of the quid pro quo between the State's right to incarcerate offenders and its obligation to offer them treatment while incarcerated.
Abstract
In Canada, there is a significant and problematic gap between the practice of incarcerating offenders because of a need for treatment and the provision of a right to treatment. Apart from the reluctance of legislatures to endorse prisoner rights in the current punitive atmosphere, courts have responded with extreme caution when presented with correctional law cases, being more concerned with public safety than expanding or supporting inmate legal rights. Inmate groups and legal services have yet to become sufficiently organized to mount reform efforts. Forensic psychiatry is facing a legitimation problem in relation to its capacity to 'rehabilitate' offenders safely, and forensic psychology has not proven that its treatments are any better nor has it yet eclipsed the power of psychiatry in correctional settings. While a right to treatment has been endorsed by mental health organizations, the economic consequences of such a right conflict with Federal and Provincial economic restraint strategies. Provisions imposing a duty to provide treatment to detainees in mental health facilities exist only in British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. However, this duty is limited by the availability of resources and the capability of staff. Only in Saskatchewan, under the Mental Health Services Act, is there endorsement of the idea that, as a right, treatment or habilitative care should be given to facilitate release. 56 footnotes.