|
SECTOR 5
CHAPTER 3
PRISON VISITING - LIFELINES TO THE COMMUNITY
In the thirty years since I first entered a Canadian penitentiary, the areas
in which the architecture of change is most visible are those which most
members of the public never get beyond -- the places where prisoners visit
with their families and friends. In contrast to the cramped and often dingy
spaces of thirty years ago, the visiting areas of both new and renovated
institutions are more spacious, have comfortable chairs, pop machines and
toys for the kids; in medium and minimum security institutions, there are
adjacent, open areas with swing sets and other apparatus upon which both
kids and their parents can play. Canadian institutions, with the exception
of the Special Handling Unit, have private family visiting houses or trailers
in which prisoners can spend up to three days (and exceptionally longer
periods) with their families; during this time they can cook their own meals
and pursue the physical and emotional intimacy that is not possible in the
normal visiting areas. In all maximum and in most medium security institutions
there are still areas for "closed" visits where prisoners are separated
from their visitors by glass partitions and where communication is through
intercom phone; however, most visits now are "open" and prisoners can talk
to and touch their visitors, so long as certain standards of decency and
modesty are maintained.
But if the visiting regime in the Canadian federal prison system is
a far cry from the movie stereotype of the prisoner desperately touching
hand to glass in a facsimile of physical contact, ironically it bears
a closer resemblance to the visiting regimes which existed in the eighteenth
century in the prisons that characterized the pre-penitentiary regime;
where a prisoner's easy access to his friends and family in the community
was the difference between living or starving. In Eighteenth Century England
it was common for wives to appear daily at the prison gates with meals
for their jailed husbands. They were permitted to remain in the prison
from dawn until lock-up and a bribe to the keeper ensured their continuing
companionship by night (Michael Ignatieff, A Just
Measure of Pain: The Penitentiary in the Industrial Revolution, 1705-1850,
[New York: Pantheon, 1978] p. 34). However, in the modern penitentiary,
the correctional theory underlying prisoner's access to their loved ones
and friends is not to provide the physical sustenance for survival, but
to maintain the bonds of community to facilitate prisoners' re-integration
into the community when they leave the prison gates.
The 1992 Corrections and Conditional Release
Act and Regulations provides the
legal architecture for this correctional philosophy. The new legislation
marks a legally significant shift from the pre-1992 Penitentiary
Act, in which visiting was a privilege, to a regime in which prisoners
have a right to maintain contact with the community, subject to reasonable
limits. Section 71(1) of the CCRA provides:
In order to promote relationships between inmates and
the community, an inmate is entitled to
have reasonable contact, including visits and correspondence, with family,
friends and other person from outside the penitentiary, subject to such
reasonable limits as are prescribed for protecting the security of the
penitentiary or the safety of persons. (emphasis added)
The CCR Regulations make it clear that
prisoners have a presumptive entitlement to an open visit. Section 90(1)
provides:
Every inmate shall have a reasonable opportunity to
meet with their visitor without a physical barrier to physical contact
unless
(a) the institutional head or a staff member designated
by the institutional head believes on reasonable grounds that the barrier
is necessary for the security of the penitentiary or the safety of any
person; and
(b) no less restrictive measure is available.
The Regulations also specify the conditions under which a prisoner's
right to visit can be denied or suspended. Section 91(1) provides:
(1) The institutional head or a staff member designated
by the institutional head may authorize the refusal or suspension of a
visit to an inmate where the institutional head or staff member believes
on reasonable grounds
(a) that during the course of the visit, the inmate or visitor would
(i) jeopardize the security of the penitentiary or the safety of any person,
or
(ii) plan or commit a criminal offence; and
(b) that restrictions on the manner in which the visit
takes place would not be adequate to control the risk.
(2) Where a refusal or suspension is authorized under
subsection (1),
(a) the refusal or suspension may continue for as long
as the risk referred to in that subsection continues; and
(b) the institutional head or staff member shall promptly inform the inmate
and the visitor of the reasons for the refusal or suspension and shall
give the inmate and the visitor an opportunity to make representations
with respect thereto.
The Commissioner's Directive dealing with visiting adds a further level
of specificity to the visiting regime. Section 19 of CD 770 provides:
Each visit shall be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
The refusal or suspension of a visit from a specific individual to a particular
inmate shall occur in accordance with Duty to Act Fairly. The refusal
or suspension of a visit from a specific individual shall continue only
for as long as the risk which justified the refusal or suspension of the
visit continues. The reassessment of the risk shall be done not less than
once every six months and the result and the decision shall be forwarded
in writing to the inmate within 14 days. (CD 770, December 17, 2001)
For most prisoners, especially those with young families, the right
to receive visits is the most important right of all. Although a decision
of a disciplinary board or a segregation review board may have a more
obvious impact on a prisoner's residual liberty, the consequential effects
of these decisions where they result in suspension or restrictions on
the prisoner's right to have open or private family visits is what most
concerns prisoners. However, whereas the CCRA
and the Regulations provide for both disciplinary and segregation review
boards and prescribe their procedures, they create no equivalent board
or body of procedures for decisions that restrict the right of visiting.
Even more surprisingly, the visit review board is not even mentioned in
the Commissioner's Directive on Visiting and its establishment is left
to regional instructions issued by each regional headquarters. The regional
instruction issued by the Pacific Region sets out the purpose behind the
visiting program and the role of the visit review board.
3. The aim of the
Visiting Program in the Pacific Region, consistent with the Mission Document
shall be to recognize and support the value of family and personal relationships
and to encourage and assist the offender to become a law-abiding citizen.
7. Each Warden shall appoint Visits Review Board or
equivalent.
8. The VRB shall
be responsible for the following:
(a) reviewing all applications for visiting;
(b) reviewing on a regular basis the quality of individual
inmate visits;
(c) recommending to warden any alterations to an inmate's
visiting program (e.g. suspension, restriction, etc.);
(d) documenting decisions, visitor's records and notifications
to visitors/inmates; and
(e) monitoring the updating of visitor's security checks
which are completed by Preventive Security staff as required.
12. Recommendations
to alter or suspend an inmate's visiting program for security reasons
must be based on probable cause grounds. Page 1 of 1
|
