By Kieran McCartan, PhD., & David S. Prescott, LICSW
Last week’s blog post focused on an unfortunate reality: We
can’t always discuss things publicly lest we be labelled as political
partisans. Although no one is without some degree of biases and leanings, it is
simply too easy to attack and be attacked for statements taken out of context. We
recall the sad fate of someone who commented in social media that balancing the
human rights of the client and the community can be a challenge. His statement
was sent to a local politician, who went to the media and scored significant
political points saying that this doctoral level researcher and policy wonk had
a “catch-and-release policy towards predators.” (It is worth noting that many
human rights are enshrined in international
law as well as state and agency policies; the Tokyo
Rules are one example. In the US, the death penalty has been ruled unconstitutional
for sex crimes, but that hasn’t stopped some states from trying.)
Working in the criminal-justice field often presents many
paradoxes and contradictions that leave professionals conflicted about their
roles, and/or their belief systems. In some cases, we have to and having to
justify our roles to others. On the one hand, compassionate treatment
approaches are the most effective. On the other hand, the practitioner may have
to work hard to to look beyond their own biases and beliefs to do so. Important
to remember is that having compassion for someone does not mean that you condone
or endorse their behavior; it means that you can see into their situation, try
to understand, and prioritize their highest needs (which means developing a
lifestyle free of harming others).
Over the years, this blog’s authors have written about the
early-life adversity that has influenced our clients and the need for trauma
informed practice in order to ensure the most effective participation in
treatment. What we often talk about less is human rights, although many
have done so. It’s easy to respect the human rights of law-abiding people,
but more difficult top do that for people who have hurt and harmed others.
In recent weeks there have been many cases across Europe
that have called for us to have respect for others, to call in question our
moral lens and to advocate for human rights in difficult cases. We have seen a
call for care homes
to be built for aging individuals convicted of sexual crimes, an individual
being tried
and convicted of manslaughter on the grounds for diminished responsibility
for the murder of three people last year in the UK, and the change in incarceration
conditions for Josef
Fritz as a result of his dementia diagnosis. These cases beg the question
of how we best treat those whose who have committed horrific crimes when their
capacity to understand their punishment is gone. Where are our human rights
thresholds?
Not surprisingly, many have found it difficult to tread a
line between compassion and punishment, especially when the system is built on
the grounds of punishment. Public, as well as political, sentiment often reflects
that. However, its important to remember that many professionals are in the field
of rehabilitation, even as we work in environments that stem from punishment.
Rehabilitation, treatment, and support cannot be seen as an
afterthought or an add-on to punishment. We all want people to come out of the
criminal justice system better able to manage themselves in society than when
they went in, or at least no worse. We have seen the damaging legacy of doing
nothing through the failed
“nothing works” doctrine of the 70’s and 80’s started by Robert Martinson, and
that became a hallmark of the Reagan-Bush and Thatcher eras. We know though
research and practice that treatment works, but that it can take effort and
that it works in different ways, at different times, for different people. This
can make it complex and not easy to rationalize or fund when one can’t entirely
predict the outcomes. Although it can seem like we are in a revised nothing-works
era currently, that is not true with the influence of public health and
prevention policies in criminal justice. We are still talking about treatment
and rehabilitation; but it’s challenging for professionals at times to engage
in these conversations and find support.
We need to be compassionate in our work and think about the
human rights of often risky and at-times dangerous people. How can we hope for
them to reduce their risk and to integrate back into society if they can’t learn
about pro-social, empathic, and good behavior from us? How can we best accept
our clients even as we don’t accept their behaviors? How do we process our work
with others? How do we explain it? Where do we seek help? And, more importantly,
do we get help when we ask? It is important to provide a rationale, critically discuss,
and support each other in the challenging times we are experiencing. Supporting
people who have seriously offended and are dangerous is as much a collective
endeavour as an individual one.
No comments:
Post a Comment