Changing youth behaviour through justice education.

The issue of youth crime arises with predictability during each election campaign or in the wake of high profile incidents. However, between these periods of public attention, there is very little public discussion of strategies for addressing the issue. As with many issues rooted in the complex interplay of poverty, parenting, opportunity, and values, education is the most effective tool to affect permanent, long-term change.

Justice education provides an opportunity to cultivate an understanding of one of our social institutions while also educating young people about the limits of acceptable social behaviour and the consequences for transgressing these boundaries. As a complement to this increased understanding of the players and process of the system, justice education also offers opportunities for young people to put themselves into the system and consider themselves and their families as the beneficiaries of a fair legal regime, building trust that will extend beyond their schooling days.

Currently, many young people learn about our justice system from television. While the school curriculum does include an introduction to the system, this occurs within a social studies curriculum in which the elements of the system are explained and then memorized. There is little room for participation in or questioning of the system that interprets and applies our laws.

Unlike the wealth of portrayals of the American justice system that appear on TV and in the movies, very little information and few representations of the Canadian justice system are available. As a result, many young people believe that Canadian citizens can invoke American constitutional rights. They also frequently assume that Canada uses the American system of elected district attorneys and judges. At first glance, this may appear to be a matter of simply correcting misinformation about the electoral system; however the impact of these misperceptions runs deep.

If one assumes that Canadian police officers, Crown attorneys, and judges work collaboratively, as is depicted on popular American TV programs, suspicion of bias is logical. This breeds distrust when young people come in contact with police officers or are navigating their own minor criminal matters, magnifying the effect of these interactions on their future choices. Justice education initiatives of the Ontario Justice Education Network (OJEN) are illustrative and highlight the role justice education can play in challenging these misperceptions.

One young man involved in a justice education program explained that he refused to admit responsibility during the sentencing process (a common practice in sentencing used to focus on the rehabilitation of the young person). He was unwilling to make the admission because he believed that this would be conveyed to the police patrolling his neighbourhood and would result in an increased presumption that he was responsible for any other similar incidents. He feared for his safety and that of his family if he made a formal admission of responsibility. Without a basic understanding of youth sentencing, he opted to protect himself from a perceived, though ungrounded, risk of future police scrutiny rather than assist his counsel and the court to structure a constructive rehabilitative sentence. The result for the young person was a harsher than necessary sentence premised on his unwillingness to take responsibility for his actions.

Another participant explained that he had been arrested for his possible criminal involvement because he was present when the police arrived at the scene. He believed that his defence counsel and the judge took instruction from the Crown counsel. As a result, he did not trust his counsel or discuss his options openly. When notified of his court dates, he regarded the appointment as similar to a summons to the principal's office, with annoying, but not serious, consequences. He repeatedly did not attend on the designated dates. By the time his matter was dealt with, he had accumulated many Failure to Appear notations on his record. He received a custodial sentence for an event that might typically result in a conditional discharge. Presumably, his repeated disregard for the authority of the court was a factor in deciding on an appropriate sentence. As this young person recounted these events, he did not connect the severity of his sentence with his repeated absences from court. Even when the connection was explained to him, he had difficulty believing that his disregard for the court could have resulted in a period of incarceration and a criminal record.

In both of these instances, the court could not rely on the provisions of our justice system designed to divert young people out of the criminal justice system in large part because of a lack of co-operation on the part of the accused. This lack of co-operation was rooted in misunderstanding and mistrust. The unfortunate result is two youth now have criminal records and further entrenched negative perceptions of the system as biased and unfair.

Justice education offers the potential to increase understanding of our justice system through honest dialogue. Young people in OJEN programs, who have the opportunity to discuss the justice system with the lawyers and judges who work within it, have challenged these professionals with allegations of bias and racial profiling. As a result of candid conversations about these issues, young people learn how the system works to prevent rights abuses and how to advocate for themselves when their rights have been transgressed. The legal professionals who participate are exposed to the sources of this misunderstanding and disrespect and express a shift in their own perceptions of the young people involved in legal matters as accused persons and as witnesses. On both fronts, these conversations move us closer to a responsive justice system.

Misunderstandings about the impact of youth crime on society, the severe impact of an individual's actions on a victim, and the long-term consequences of youthful mistakes, often lead youth to consider property crime or minor assaults as trivial events. Participation in mock sentencing events has resulted in young people reconsidering the impact of their actions on their communities.

This result parallels the rehabilitative impact that actual sentencing can have. The use of diversion programs and restorative justice with young offenders has been statistically shown to prevent recidivism. After a first brush with the criminal justice system, many young people understand the broad consequences of their actions and do not commit future crimes. But only offering this contextual understanding of the effects of crime to those who have already committed an offence misses an opportunity to deter youth crime. Creating educational opportunities for all young people, as they begin to conceive of themselves as responsible adults who will experience and participate in the delicate balancing, advocacy, and restitution of a criminal court process, is a way to replace their misinformation with actual understanding of their role in society.

The need to cultivate a sense of personal investment in upholding our social rules and constraints is also critical when young people are expected to participate in rights protection. Learning through experience about the importance of protecting the rights of others, if one also wants to claim such a protection, is an important step towards replacing a sense of entitlement with a social expectation of vigilance and courage. Students who learn about Canada's model of rights protection, most commonly through human rights legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, come to understand the importance of advocating for others' rights. With this understanding, students become engaged in combating racism, bullying, and forms of intolerance. Teachers involved in rights education within the classroom notice an improvement in classroom behaviour. With an understanding of the social aspect of rights protection, students are more likely to stand up for a peer or take action within their communities. In these ways, justice education goes beyond simply orienting students to the elements of our justice system by introducing them to the citizen's role in ensuring that our justice system serves us all.

In the 2001 Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers decision, the Supreme Court of Canada articulated the role of the school in imparting a sense of citizenship, "Schools are meant to develop civic virtue and responsible citizenship, to educate in an environment free of bias, prejudice and intolerance."

Learning about the ways in which Canadian society strives towards increased tolerance links formative school experiences with society's expectations of a responsible citizen. Rights protection, often identified as one of Canada's national democratic values, requires citizens to take their responsibilities seriously, and to also have vigilant and realistic expectations of the judiciary, politicians, and social institutions. A study by B. Howe and K. Covell (Schools and Students, Carswell 1988) states that as children, "... value their own rights as well as the rights of others, and as they become rights-conscious adults with voting power and in leadership positions, they will become more demanding [of] existing Canadian laws, policies and practices." (1)

The net gain to society of tolerant, responsible citizens, who value and protect rights, is undoubtedly in society's best interest. Young people who understand the impact of their actions and trust the professionals who assist them to limit their personal involvement with the criminal justice system are less likely to return to court as accused persons and more likely to model appropriate behaviour with their peers.

Justice sector professionals involved in justice education also benefit from a reciprocal exchange of ideas with young people. One judge participating in a program through the Ontario Justice Education Network reveals the potential for community-based justice education to impact the system, as well as the students, "I met with approximately ten young persons yesterday involved in the Courtrooms & Classrooms Program ....I found the discussion to be extremely interesting in that their thoughts and ideas caused me to start thinking about matters that involve young people in general and reflect or reevaluate some of my current thoughts."

As young people and justice sector professionals engage in dialogue about the challenges facing our justice system, both groups are forced to question their assumptions and recognize that everyone needs to be actively involved in addressing problems of youth crime, marginalization, and perceptions of racial bias. Justice education, whether for students with no personal experience or for young people who have had negative first exposures to the system, can be seen as contributing to and reflecting the evolution of social values and safeguarding public confidence in the justice system.

For more information about the program and resources available through the Ontario Justice Education Network or similar organizations across Canada, please visit the OJEN website at www.ojen. ca or call 416-947-5273.

References

(1.) W. H. Giles, Schools and Students (Vancouver: Carswell, 1988), at 113.

(1.) Teams of students arguing in an OJEN mock trial 

Sarah McCoubrey, LLB is the Executive Director of the Ontario Justice Education Network, in Toronto, Ontario.