Kathryn Campbell

Criminal Injustice Understanding the Causes, Effects, and Responses to Wrongful Conviction in Canada

During the past decade, there has been growing international interest in the topic of wrongful conviction and its serious implications. As in other jurisdictions, Canada has seen several high-profile cases of wrongful conviction that have led to an increased recognition of the fallibility of the criminaljustice process.However, despite increased media attention to the issue, corresponding academic literature on the problem has been limited in this country. This article begins by reviewing the literature on the causes of wrongful conviction and uses examples from Canadian cases as illustrations. Following this, through qualitative interviews with five wrongly convicted Canadians, the article examines some long-termeffects of a wrongfulimprisonmenton individuals and their families both during incarceration and following their release. Finally, government responses to the issue are discussed, illustrating their limitations and their relevance for criminal justice policy and practice.

Young offender diversion in Canada: tensions and contradictions of social policy appropriation

Under Canada’s Young Offenders Act (YOA, 1984–2003), the concept of diversion became an important feature of the youth justice system. Consisting of the formally constituted Alternative Measures program and other more informally administered procedures, diversion was developed as a means of responding to youth aged 12–17 years who have committed minor offences while minimizing their risks of stigmatization and recidivism. Although the YOA was subjected to persistent criticism concerning its ambiguity and contradictions, and was recently replaced by the new Youth Justice Criminal Act, very little research has been devoted to the implementation of young offender diversion programs. In this paper we present the results of a phenomenological inquiry into the practice of diversion in one large southern Ontario community. By regarding the implementation of diversion as a form of social policy appropriation by various professional groups, we highlight the perspectives of 17 practitioners who have had extensive experience in administering particular aspects of diversion programs. These perspectives differ in some fundamental ways, and thus help to illuminate the broad latitude that exists for discretionary decision-making in sanctioning youth who have committed minor offences. Such differences also reflect the variation of diversion practices and corresponding tensions among those responsible for this form of young offender disposition. The paper concludes by surmising that a two-tiered system of diversion is emerging that inadvertently may be diminishing the rights of minor young offenders.