Young Women and Violent
Offences
BY KIM PATE
L'auteure nous fait part de données trompeuses et erronées sur l=augmentation de la violence chez les jeunes
filles. Elle ajoute que les changements
régressifs apportés à la ALoi des jeunes contrevenants@ ont déçu les jeunes et en ont marginalisé
certains qui avaient des besoins spécifiques, surtout les jeunes femmes.
Some time ago I received a call from a reporter asking me whether I
would be prepared to do an interview with him about the increase in violent
offending by young women. AWhat increase?@ was my response. He said his
local police source had advised him that their community had seen a 200 per
cent increase in robbery offences alone over the past decade. When I asked him how many actual cases those
figures represented, he was not certain.
Further investigation revealed that two young women had been charged
with robbery -- one about ten years earlier, the other had just occurred. Prior to that, there were apparently no
charges or convictions of girls or young women on record. So, technically, the statistic was
correct. The impression created by the
200 per cent figure and the accompanying media hype, however, created an
incredibly skewed and inaccurate picture of young women suddenly erupting into
violent behaviour. The reality was that
the violent behaviour that was perceived to be erupting was pretty much
nonexistent and the risk posed to the public by the two young women involved
was incredibly low.
Recently, I have received other calls from reporters, students, and
other members of the public requesting information about the increasing number
of girls in gangs. A review of the
media accounts leaves one to conclude that the most common causes of this
apparent phenomenon are women=s desire to be equal to men and the breakdown of the family, which has
resulted in girls not having their fathers around to help socialize them. The facts do not support either hypothesis.
It is interesting to note that up until the 1970s, the occasional
violent acts committed by women were generally ignored by law enforcement
authorities worldwide. During the '70s,
a new mythology emerged that linked the women=s movement to a new wave of violent offending by women. White, adult women, as leaders of the women=s emancipation movement, were identified as
causing the surge in serious criminal offending by women. American author Meda Chesney-Lind calls this
the Aliberation@ hypothesis. She further says
that in the 1990s, we are in the midst of a second wave that causally links
women=s equality with girls= -- especially poor, minority girls -- participation in gangs.
Throughout both Awaves@ there have been no significant changes in
the levels and patterns of girls= violent and aggressive behaviour in Canada, the United States and the
United Kingdom (Chesney-Lind). There
are, however, marked differences in external responses to violent or aggressive
actions, especially those perpetrated by youth. The development of so-called zero tolerance policies have
resulted in increased policing and prosecuting of all forms of violence
committed by boys and girls.
Proportionately, because the overall number of young women charged with
violent offences remains relatively low, the increased numbers create more substantial
percentage increases in the statistics for girls than they do for boys.
In addition, there has been an increased criminalization of young women=s survival skills. In the past, it was relatively easy to institutionalize or
enforce social controls on young women if they ran away, missed curfew, engaged
in sexual activity, or displayed behaviour that might be defined as Aunfeminine@ or, worse yet, unmanageable.
Under the old Juvenile Delinquents Act, a young woman could be
imprisoned in a juvenile home for such activities. The introduction of the Young OffendersAct (YOA) in 1982
was supposed to end the arbitrary detention of young women for such
activities. However, the way the YOA
is being implemented by police and judges belies its legislative intent. We fear that the new Youth Criminal
Justice Act will not rectify this situation if only the law, and not the
practices, change.
What the YOA is supposed to be about
It is now more than 15 years since the Young Offenders Act was
proclaimed into law and paraded internationally as one of the most innovative
and progressive legislative responses to juvenile justice. Since its inception,
however, the legislation has had its most progressive elements gradually
chiselled away.
The YOA is based on youth-positive principles and it is
distressing to observe continued attempts to erode its fundamental tenets and
guiding principles. Regressive changes
have failed youth and further marginalized many youth with special needs,
particularly young women.
The YOA calls for the least restrictive interventions possible
for young people. In fact, it calls for
an examination of all other youth-serving systems (such as education, child
welfare, and children=s
mental health) prior to invoking its provisions. Alternative or diversionary options are entrenched in the Act. Paradoxically, the past decade has seen just
the opposite result. In many schools or
group homes, for instance, matters that would previously have been dealt with
by an internal administrative authority are increasingly likely to be referred
to the juvenile justice system.
Rather than adopt a Azero violence@
approach, Azero tolerance@ policies are resulting in ever increasing numbers of disenfranchised
youth being jettisoned out of schools and communities, and usually through,
rather than into, a thinning social safety net. Rather than nurturing our youth, we are increasingly scapegoating
and disposing of them as though they are expendable human refuse. Statistics reveal that there has been an
overall reduction in youth crime generally, as well as a relatively low
incidence of violent and repeat youth crime more specifically (Statistics
Canada).
These figures notwithstanding, police, reporters, and communities
continue to blame the YOA for crime, quickly criminalize the behaviour
of young people, and throw them to the wide, expensive, and ineffective net of
the juvenile justice system.
Young people are best served by supportive and proactive interventions,
as opposed to the punitive and reactive approaches characterized by and endemic
to crimina justice responses. Indeed,
there is more than sufficient evidence that preventative approaches to crime
are far more cost-effective than current criminal justice approaches. Accordingly, we should focus on developing
and enhancing high quality supportive services for children, youth, and adults
alike -- from universal and enriched health, child care, and educational
opportunities to effective gender, anti-poverty, anti-racism, and conflict
resolution programs. Recognizing the
current stresses of fiscal restraint and downsizing, schools might re-direct
efforts to consolidating creative energies and encouraging an empowered student
body to provide peer and mentoring support, for example.
Professional training on the developmental, educational, as well as
psycho-social attributes of young people should be a prerequisite for those working
in the youth justice system. In
addition, the high number of young offenders who have been abused must be
recognized and reflected in professional training of those who come in contact
with young offenders. It has been
reported that at least 50 per cent of the young offenders serving time in
British Columbia had previously been sexually abused. In additional, even higher percentages have been reported in
Alberta and Manitoba studies (Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs). Similarly, a 1994 Ontario
study conducted by Margaret Shaw revealed that of the young women in custody,
63 per cent had been physically abused and 58 per cent had been sexually abused
(Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs). Given these statistics, training for dealing with abuse victims
is very important.
In order to ensure significant short- and long-term change, proactive
education and training programs are required for judges, lawyers, probation
officers, police officers, and all other youth justice personnel. The reorientation of those involved with
young people is a prerequisite component to the development of positive and
effective change within the youth justice and all other youth-serving systems. And young people themselves, as well as
front line workers, should be involved in the development of professional
training, as well as in services and programs designed to address the needs of
youth.
Providing supportive and empowering services to young people at the
time of their first contact with the youth justice system generally reduces the
likelihood of future Acriminal@ involvement. Of course, these services should not exist only within the youth
justice system because that would likely criminalize youth who are simply in
need of some supportive services.
Preventative and proactive approaches need to be emphasized within the
child welfare, educational, medical, and mental health systems as well.
Custody as a last resort -- not
In terms of custodial sanctions, the YOA stipulates that such
dispositions must only to be used as a last resort. Further, when custody is resorted to, open custody should be
considered before secure or closed custody.
Secure custody was supposed to have been the absolute last resort in terms
of sentencing under the Young Offenders Act. Moreover, it was envisioned that open custody would be easily
distinguishable from secure custody, such as a group-home type of setting as
opposed to an institution. In most
provinces, however, the two forms of custody are virtually indistinguishable;
most open custody settings are now institutional in nature.
Where existing programs and services do not address the needs of young
people or the protection of society, the first priority must be to address these
service or programming deficits. Rather
than resorting to the Aadult@ criminal justice context at ever earlier
ages, the federal and provincial authorities should be focussing on
redistributing the $170-million spent annually on federal transfers for youth
justice to focus on the development and enhancement of youth-positive
community-based dispositional options, improved educational and psycho-social
programs, and services in community and institutional settings.
There is a paucity of community-based and therapeutic alternatives for
young people in general and young women in particular. The federal Minister of Justice could
address some of these issues through cost-sharing agreements with the
provinces, rather than proposing legislative amendments. Such moves also unfortunately have the
tendency to be simplistic and diminish the pressure to create more proactive
and preventative means of addressing complex issues and concerns. The federal government could reduce justice
transfers for custody beds with a corresponding increase for community resource
development for young people.
Furthermore, provinces could be encouraged to develop gender-specific
and culturally appropriate services and programs for young people. Too frequently, the services and programs
that do exist are ill-equipped to deal with issues as gender, race, class, and
sexual orientation.
Young women -- still too few to count
All young people suffer as a result of the lack of adequate support
services and other systems-based deficiencies.
Those who work with young people will be all too familiar with the
erosion of resources and support for our community-based support systems for
youth. The relatively small numbers of
young women who are criminalized and enter the system, as compared to young
men, result in even fewer services for young offenders in any community.
Young women are disproportionately disadvantaged as a result of a lack
of gender-focused community and institutional programming and services, and
extremely limited access to open custody settings. The majority of young women who receive open custody dispositions
must serve their sentences in secure custody and/or coed correctional
facilities. Girls and young women also
tend to have more limited access to the services and programs, both in the
community and in institutions. In many
young offender centres across the country, incidences of sexual assault and/or
pregnancies during custody have led to the further segregation of young women
in correctional facilities (Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry
Societies). Young women are in real
need of women-centred approaches in the youth justice system, their needs are
often ignored or at best subsumed by those of young men.
Staff also cite a complete lack of resources for young women in terms
of job training (in the community or institutions), education with day care for
teenage mothers, or parenting programs.
In addition, there are no provisions for pregnant teens within the
institutions. Lack of medical staff
also places limitations on the movement of pregnant youth to camps or open
custody facilities.
The over representation of young women in custody for administrative
breaches (such as the non-payment of fines) and child-welfare type concerns
(such as child neglect) are further indicators of systemic bias (Canadian
Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies).
Canadian, American, British, and Australian studies of youth court
charges and sentencing reveal that young women are disproportionately and
overwhelmingly charged and imprisoned for administrative breaches, non-criminal
behaviour, and non-status offences (such as traffic violations) (Howard League;
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; Chesney-Lind).
Of the very few who are arrested for crimes of violence, most of the
situations involve young women reacting to violence perpetrated against them,
or offences which were previously labelled as status offences that have now
been reclassified as serious offences as a result of Azero tolerance@ (Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies; Chesney-Lind). Obviously, we all wish to see a decrease in
the use of violence in our communities.
Criminalizing youth does not diminish violence, it merely legitimizes it
in the hands of the state.
Young women appearing before the courts tend to have fewer charges
against them than males. Systemic bias
and discriminatory practices undergo a multiplier effect where gender, race,
class, ethnicity, and/or sexual orientation converge. The stereotype of girls becoming gun-toting gang robbers is
simply not supported by statistics.
That does not mean that there are not specific and egregious examples of
young women committing violent offences.
It does mean, however, that every time one such incident occurs,
journalists and talk show hosts beat the bushes for other examples to support
extreme interpretations of the event.
Police officers, teachers, social workers, criminologists, and others
asked to supply Aexpert@ opinions have a responsibility to present an accurate picture when
they choose to comment in such circumstances.
In a discussion of the current focus on girls as gang members and gang
leaders, Meda Chesney-Lind succinctly frames the issues and our challenges:
As young women are demonized by the media,
their genuine problems can be marginalized and ignored. Indeed, the girls have become the
problem. The challenge to those
concerned about girls is, then, twofold.
First, responsible work on girls in gangs must make the dynamics of this
victim blaming clear. Second, it must
continue to develop an understanding of girls= gangs that is sensitive to the context in which they arise. In an era that is increasingly concerned
about the intersections of class, race, and gender, such work seems long
overdue. (57)
Much is already known about effective and empowering ways to meet the
needs of young women. This information,
combined with adequate funding for existing and innovative support services and
networks, will result in more effective interventions, increased prevention and
decreased recidivism.
And then there=s the issue of abuse in custody...
The emerging picture of the extent of institutional abuse of young
people is grotesque (Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; CAEFS).
Young people who have already been labelled as behaviour or management problems
are especially vulnerable to abuse at the hands of institutional staff. It is extremely important that victims of
abuse can take action and be heard and responded to in supportive ways. Audits and investigations into abuse
allegations in residential schools, group homes, orphanages, and custodial
centres provide horrendous examples of how and why youth are inadequately
protected from abusive conduct.
Institutional mechanisms for dealing with internal and external abuse
are overwhelmingly inadequate. Reports
generally place specific emphasis on the particular needs of young women, who
have often been victims of abuse prior to their institutionalization.
It is indeed frightening that children placed under the control of the
Canadian government should be experiencing physical, sexual, verbal and
emotional abuse. We know that such
abuse can have an irreparable debilitating impact on the lives and psyches of
youth. The fact that abuse is
perpetrated by the very systems established to assist them only underscores the
reasonableness of youth rejection of the values and authority that do harm to
them.
So what? Now what?
There is sufficient evidence that preventative approaches to addressing
crime within the context of socio-economic, gender, racial, and ethno-cultural
realities are far more cost-effective than current criminal justice approaches.
Rather than see young people in either the adult or the juvenile
justice system, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS)
would prefer to see better services for youth in community settings. While popular in the short term, Aquick fix@ criminal justice responses cannot address what are fundamentally
social justice and equality issues. It
is far too simplistic and short-sighted to presume that the off-loading of
scapegoated youth onto the criminal justice system will solve youth crime. Nor will youthful offending be eliminated by
tinkering with the Young Offenders Act in isolation. Broader-based social reform is
fundamental. Harsher sentences have not
proved successful in protecting society or rehabilitating the individual.
The Department of Justice recently introduced
Bill C-68, which proposes to repeal the Young Offenders Act and replace
it with the new Youth Criminal Justice Act. Although this act aims to divert more youth from the youth
justice system via extra-judicial means, it also proposes more stringent
measures for youth convicted of serious and/or multiple offences. Unfortunately, so far the only new money
available is earmarked for the more regressive amendments. Yet again, we are left to rely on the
provinces to implement progressive elements of the Bill. Without new resources, there is faint hope
that more provinces will do much to change the administration of juvenile
justice in their respective jurisdictions.
Hence, unless the government links its cost-sharing agreements with the
provinces to the implementation of the progressive portions of the proposed new
Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act will result in a mere
rhetorical refraining of vitally important and unresolved issues pertaining to
criminalized youth in Canada.
The legal system reinforces sexist, racist, and classist stereotypes of
women while simultaneously legitimizing patriarchal notions of the need to
socially control women. We must all
commit to transforming the social and economic position of girls and women and
adamantly challenge attempts to further subjugate women if we are truly
interested in addressing violence in our communities. We must also refuse to fuel panic with exaggerated and inaccurate
claims about increased violent offending by women and girls. Refusing to address the issues raised by the
involvement of women and girls in our criminal justice system will continue to
cost us much more than money.
An earlier version of this article was originally published in the
Summer 1997 issue of Canada=s Children (Child Welfare League of
Canada). Reprinted with permission.
Kim Pate is the executive director of the Canadian Association of
Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS). CAEFS= 22 member organizations work with and on behalf
of women and girls involved with the justice system, particularly those in
conflict with the law.
References
Butts, Jeffrey A. Update on Statistics: Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1992. Washington, DC: Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
October 1994.
Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS). ASubmission of the Canadian
Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies to the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Regarding the Comprehensive
Review of the Young Offenders Act - Phase II.@ Ottawa:
April 1996.
Chesney-Lind, Meda. The
Female Offender: Girls, Women, and Crime.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc., 1997.
Howard League. AImprisoning Girls.@ Criminal Justice: The Magazine of the Howard League 15.2
(1997).
Sales, Nancy Jo. APrivileged Predators: Lost in the Park.@ New York 16 June 1997.
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Renewing Youth Justice: Thirteenth Report of
the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs. Ottawa:
House of Commons, April 1997.
Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Youth Court Statistics: 1991-92.
Ottawa:
Statistics Canada, 1992.
Women and Imprisonment Group. Women
and Imprisonment. Melbourne,
Australia: Fitzroy Legal
Service, 1995.