ASSIGNMENT 3 INST 348

.docx

School

Athabasca University, Calgary *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

348

Subject

Sociology

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

14

Uploaded by DeaconGuineaPigPerson1034

Assignment 3 1 ATHABASCA UNIVERSITY ASSIGNMENT 3 COURSE CODE: INST 348 COURSE NAME: ABORIGINAL JUSTICE IN CANADA 1. Traditionally, the goals of Aboriginal justice were to heal the offender and the victim and restore harmony to the community. Compare this goal to the stated goals of the
2 Canadian criminal justice system. Are the two sets of goals compatible? What is the actual effect of the Canadian criminal justice system on offenders and their communities? The traditional objectives of Aboriginal justice and the criminal justice system in Canada both approach justice from the perspective of peaceful coexistence. The two methodologies look for strategies for tending to past wrongs and guaranteeing discouragement by future wrongdoers. How these two systems achieve their objectives are what sets them apart from one another: For Aboriginal offenders and their communities, the Canadian criminal justice system's preference for imprisonment is ineffective in changing lifestyle. In addition, the criminal justice system in Canada is typically adversarial and places little emphasis on community involvement in the causes of criminal behaviors. According to Hamilton and Sinclair (1999), the Canadian criminal justice system's objectives include rehabilitating the offender, easing the suffering or loss of the victim of a crime, restoring social harmony, and demonstrating society's disapproval of criminal behavior. Aboriginal justice seeks to restore community harmony and heal both the offender and the victim. Not only are these objectives compatible, but they are also indistinguishable. For instance, when rehabilitation and healing are compared, they are remarkably similar: Both are based on the idea that something has gone wrong and needs to be fixed and include a process of getting well again. According to Green (1998), “resorting to the offender, reuniting the offender, the victim, and the community so that the community is united, and putting an educational program into place are all steps in the process.” It is essential to remember that not all the programs typically provided to non-Aboriginal offenders may be available in Aboriginal communities or on reserves. According to Hamilton and Sinclair (1999), other options include probation, conditional discharges, suspended sentences, restitution, and fines. Fines are one of
3 the least severe punishments imposed by the courts. But Aboriginal offenders have an extremely tough time paying their fines, and many Aboriginal people end up in jail because they cannot pay their fines. They are poor. If these options are carefully considered, the Canadian justice system can accomplish the goals of both systems. According to Hamilton and Sinclair (1999), most efforts were directed at eliminating the behavior's underlying cause. In any case, detainment is the absolute most normal sentence for people sentenced for indictable offenses in the Canadian law enforcement framework. According to Hamilton and Sinclair (2000), rather than being rehabilitated in the Canadian criminal justice system, offenders are exposed to conditions in which they develop habits and attitudes that prevent them from integrating into society. This contrasts with the original goal of correctional institutions, which was for offenders to be in a sanctuary where they could contemplate their wrongdoing and amend their behavior. According to Hamilton and Sinclair (1999), "institutions are not effective in rehabilitating and deterring offenders" once in prison because there is also "little in the way of constructive programming." According to Hamilton and Sinclair (1999), this excessive reliance on incarceration "also ignores the needs of the victims of crimes" and fails to adequately address the objective of restoring community harmony. Although rehabilitation is the objective of imprisonment, this objective is not accomplished. The public's disapproval of criminal behavior is at the heart of both systems' objectives; however, in Aboriginal communities, oftentimes the behavior was made public, whereas the Canadian criminal justice system emphasizes imprisonment (Hamilton and Sinclair, 1999). This does not mean that Aboriginal justice systems have not used this kind of sentencing system;
4 rather, banishment was only used when other forms of punishment failed (Hamilton and Sinclair, 1999). The Canadian criminal justice system has several negative effects on Aboriginal people, including its excessive reliance on imprisonment and sluggish court processing. Family breakups, income loss, and reduced educational opportunities are additional effects on Aboriginal communities (Hamilton and Sinclair, 1999). Because of their low socioeconomic status, Aboriginal people are frequently imprisoned. As a result, they do not stand a chance when the justice system bases its decisions on factors like employment, education, peace and stability of residence, and family standing (Hamilton and Sinclair, 1999). Further, in circumstances where Native individuals are fined as a discipline to guilty parties and compensation is paid, the fine cash leaves the local area and goes to the Common government (Hamilton and Sinclair, 1999); The community or the victim of the offender have not received any restitution. When Aboriginal people are sentenced to jail because they are unable to pay fines, this creates yet another issue with fines. This gives off an impression of being an equity framework that considers somebody to pay out of jail and where everybody is not equivalent under the law. The AJI concluded that Canadian judges use incarceration as a form of punishment too frequently. The issue is that both Aboriginal and non-Native criminals cannot be rehabilitated in jail. The AJI held that communities should be involved in sentence-making because the sentence should at least partially reflect the community's needs. Additionally, poverty, discrimination, and traumatic past experiences all play a role in the criminal justice system's overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in Canada. The Canadian system's lack of emphasis on healing and
5 restoration may exacerbate these fundamental issues as well as the cycle of crime and punishment. Green (1998) claims that imprisonment has proven to be the most effective deterrent in the Canadian justice system. In general, the goals of Native equity and the Canadian law enforcement system are vastly different. In comparison to the Canadian justice system, the Aboriginal justice system places a greater emphasis on healing and restoration. The Canadian correctional framework affects wrongdoers and their networks, with imprisonment and discipline making both positive and adverse consequences. On the other hand, the fact that Indigenous peoples make up a sizable portion of the criminal justice system in Canada emphasizes the need for a justice system that is both more comprehensive and sensitive to cultural differences.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help