Scholarlink

<p>Canada’s Indigenous youth have been overrepresented in the correctional system. This paper maintains that ‘risk-assessment’ process has been a key contributing factor to the overrepresentation rate. As a ‘normalization’ technique risk-assessment has been a mainstay of Canada’s criminal justice system, which has been a key colonial institution responsible for the oppression of Indigenous people. More specifically, this paper argues that the existing problems with the risk-assessment process have played a key role in the overrepresentation rate. These problems are: (1) inability of youth criminal justice system to clearly define the goal of normalizing process, (2) strong belief in the accuracy of risk-assessment tools as ‘scientific’ methods of measuring offenders’ risk and progress, (3) variety of risk-assessment tools and their inconsistent use (in application and interpretation of results), (4) shortage of staff and other resources, (5) unreliability of risk-assessment tools, (6) justice system actors’ concentration on security, and (7) focus on Eurocentric values in designing the tools.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Colonization, Normalization and Risk-Assessment: The Case of Youth Criminal Justice Act and Correctional Overrepresentation of Indigenous Youth in Canada

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年5月21日

查看全文
  • Reza Barmaki

摘要

Canada’s Indigenous youth have been overrepresented in the correctional system. This paper maintains that ‘risk-assessment’ process has been a key contributing factor to the overrepresentation rate. As a ‘normalization’ technique risk-assessment has been a mainstay of Canada’s criminal justice system, which has been a key colonial institution responsible for the oppression of Indigenous people. More specifically, this paper argues that the existing problems with the risk-assessment process have played a key role in the overrepresentation rate. These problems are: (1) inability of youth criminal justice system to clearly define the goal of normalizing process, (2) strong belief in the accuracy of risk-assessment tools as ‘scientific’ methods of measuring offenders’ risk and progress, (3) variety of risk-assessment tools and their inconsistent use (in application and interpretation of results), (4) shortage of staff and other resources, (5) unreliability of risk-assessment tools, (6) justice system actors’ concentration on security, and (7) focus on Eurocentric values in designing the tools.