What does a community do with deviants? This article discusses the matter of imprisonment, and advocates for a parole system.

Source: Reformed Perspective, 1983. 8 pages.

Imprisonment and Release

A Grassroots View on Corrections🔗

Correctional Service🔗

The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) is a recent amalgamation (1979) of the Federal Penitentiary Service and the Parole Service. It is headed by the Commissioner of Corrections, who re­ports to the Solicitor General. Five geo­graphic regions administer the operation of institutions and parole offices.

Under the Penitentiary Act and the Parole Act, the CSC has the responsibility to manage and administer the sentence pronounced by the court of all adults awarded a term of imprisonment of two years or more. Lesser sentences are ad­ministered by the provinces.

There are about 10,000 federal offen­ders in prison and some 6,000 in the com­munity under supervision. Almost all in­carcerated offenders will one day be re­leased. The question is: Then what? Will society be waiting for him? Will a job be waiting, or his wife (14% are legally mar­ried)? Where will he go and what will he do? What has he become? Is he a better person? Is he rehabilitated? Did he "learn his lesson" or has he become bitter, more deviant, and more dangerous than he was before his conviction?

During the 50s and 60s, justice agen­cies generally operated on the belief and assumption that prisons could rehabilitate people. Crime was explained as a symp­tom of a sickness along the so-called "medical model." It is from those days that "alcoholism" was declared an illness (i.e. the only illness requiring a majority vote by the medical profession before be­ing pronounced as such). Prisons were to operate under a "treatment model" and were expected to "heal" and rehabilitate offenders. This minimized the offender's responsibility for his criminal activity and created an attitude of paternalism as well as dependency. It also appeared to have resulted in the tendency to award longer sentences or those over three years. (The Dutch consider a long sentence one over three months.) Some of those opposing the treatment model may suggest other single-minded solutions that maintain putting the onus of reform on the correc­tional service by suggesting provisions like higher education/training and harsher treatment to instill penitence or disciplin­ary measures usually more suitable for children.

The treatment approach, of course, was not successful even though it really was never fully implemented. Recognition of this rather misleading approach result­ed during the seventies in a shift towards the so-called "opportunities model." The law holds people responsible for their choice to commit a crime. The CSC fol­lows this philosophy and wishes to reduce the paternalistic attitude of prisons as well as the resulting dependency displayed by inmates. Therefore offenders are expected to make their own choices and live with the consequences. All programs are now geared in that direction. Accountability, demonstration, and performance have be­come key words, and the CSC is expected to become a more honest and fair service.

One may hit at the root by asking, "Why give offenders 'opportunities'?" "What opportunities did the victim have or others who, in a similar situation, did not give in to the temptation, or who did not resort to illegal means?" The choice of name for the model is therefore likely not a fortunate one. However, expecting an inmate to bear the consequences of his program choices can be beneficial, and the consequences of his offence are dealt with by the court. The court can initiate innovative means that convey the intent of the law, the need of the victim, the need for restoration, retribution, and punish­ment, as well as the reform of the offend­er. The CSC will administer and manage the sentence in accordance with the court's intent and is now becoming more accountable.

However, the CSC is at the tail end of the criminal justice system. Actually, there is no such system, but in Canada we have a conglomerate of more or less autonomous systems — or rather, sectors — namely, the law, the courts, the law en­forcement agencies, and the correctional agencies. These are again divided among federal, provincial, and municipal juris­dictions. The Law Reform Commission appears to be diligently involved in ad­dressing every aspect of the justice system. Attempts towards unification of an opera­tive system certainly require, above all, an overall acceptance and adherence to a per­vading philosophy by all sectors involved, including society at large. CSC is at least organizationally addressing the depriva­tion of liberties in a systematic, responsi­ble way, both in the institution and in the community. One can view the parole arm as the one that must contend or grapple with the results of whatever damage may have occurred in the family, in school, in the juvenile system, in the community, through contact with police, the courts, and probation service, as well as the dam­aging results from prison experiences.

If all these institutions failed to ac­complish the desired results, one may wonder what a parole supervisor can do? The best way I know how to answer that is with the belief that any of God's creatures may change at any time in this life. Being reminded of "O that today you would hearken to His voice!" (Psalms 95:7b) will nevertheless not negate "Therefore God gave them up ... to impurity" (Romans 1:24, etc.), for we do not know His partic­ular council nor the time or the day, but we are expected to continue in faith.

Response to Deviance🔗

What is a community to do with members whose behavior deviates from the norm or whose behavior is unac­ceptable to the majority? What to do with those who obviously show an attitude of disrespect for law and order by breaching traditions and rebelling against generally accepted standards?

A natural reaction, common to most cultures, is that a community will attempt to rid itself of such disruptive behavior. It will desire to expel the problem, that per­son, or both. After all, he "upsets the ap­plecart"; punish him, and if that does not stop it, banishment will. A more perma­nent way yet, and often revengefully pre­ferred, is to take the offender's life. And ... back to the status quo.

Such a reaction is not only natural, but perhaps at times even found among us. It is so easy to ostracize a congrega­tional member for not following suit. We may rationalize and say that it is his own fault, for why does he have to be so ob­noxious, difficult, and different? (We hardly ever ask him that question.) In principle, how are such attitudes different from premature excommunication and ex­ecution before a court or a council has properly dealt with such a person?

Perhaps the initial questions require reformulation to read: What does the Cre­ator require of mankind to do with those who breach the law? Some may reason that, above all, justice must prevail! But what did David do with the murderer Ab­salom? What did Christ do when an adul­teress was placed before Him (John 8)?

In Canada most federal inmates are convicted under the Criminal Code of Canada. Its historical development, its ba­sic philosophy, and the reasons for stat­utes to require imposition of imprisonment is outside my province and will hopefully be addressed elsewhere.

Why Imprisonment?🔗

A logical answer to the question why we incarcerate people is to punish the offender and to protect society. Courts may suspend passing a sentence with or without conditions such as restitu­tion, probation, community work, etc.; they may levy a fine, grant an absolute or conditional discharge, or imprison a per­son.

Imprisonment is the most severe sanction in Canada and should therefore not be overused. With only 3010 of sen­tenced persons ending up in federal pris­ons, this still means that some 4,500 individuals per year enter the penitentiaries. If the community were more involved in the justice or sentencing process, these num­bers could effectively be reduced. By in­volvement, I do not mean political back-benching to pressure for government ac­tion, but to enter the "system" by com­munity committees, by individually com­batting crime (e.g., arresting shoplifters) and by assisting victims as well as offend­ers. Not all penitentiary inmates or "con­victs" are beasts, schizophrenic or psychopathic rapists, killers, or armed rob­bers. In such cases, the fundamental no­tion of retributive justice usually still ap­pears common to mankind. However, it should not go rampant (cf. Deuteronomy 19) or be applied to all other violations of legally es­tablished laws (crimes). For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will re­pay" (Hebrews 10:30), and Christ said,

You have heard that it was said 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil ... if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well ...

Matthew 5:38-42

Besides protecting society, imprison­ment can also be used for reasons like de­terrence and reduction of crime, as well as for reform. However, the best deterrence is ensuring detection, arrest, and swift dis­position. Instead of having the courts and lawyers following an adversary procedure or one based on opposition, the system should be geared towards cooperation in coming to a fair disposition that satisfies a general sense of justice, the victim's loss or harm, as well as the future of the of­fender and the community.

Imprisonment cannot be expected to be ultimately responsible for the offender's reform. The least it can do is only temporarily to stop the offender from committing further crimes. After all, most terms end in three or four years.

Why Incarceration? An Example🔗

Upon receiving a man's request for a parole and related information from the police, the court, the prison staff and his case manager, I visited his family. While interviewing his wife, his 8-year-old son hid in the bedroom closet; he figured it could be his turn to be arrested (one year after his father's arrest). An upstand­ing citizen, his father, but as a security of­ficer for fifteen years, stuck in a small town, discontent because he failed to get a promotion despite his efforts in fighting for justice and honesty also among his peers, he finally became increasingly frus­trated with a storekeeper who repeatedly left his store unlocked at night. He started to pilfer but was caught and almost "crucified" when sentenced to serve a term of twenty-three months of imprison­ment.

Why imprisonment? Does he pose a (violent) threat to society? Did previous disposition not help? He did not have any prior involvement. He is a criminal, is he? The humiliation of the loss of his career, the denouncing reaction of his peers, the community, and his relatives, as well as the return of the merchandise (for he did not pilfer for profit), along with his wil­lingness to pay for any inconvenience or loss were not enough? Would he likely continue his "criminal" activities? Why should his wife and children suffer loss through his absence? What aspect of retri­bution, restoration, prevention, reduc­tion, or reform called for imprisonment?


Imprisonment as we know it is a rela­tively new idea, not even two hundred years old. Prior to that, prisons were used to hold those awaiting trial or punish­ment, and to temporarily lock up drunks, vagrants, beggars, debtors, and the like. The more severe sanctions at the disposal of the court in those days were corporal punishment, transportation, exile, and capital punishment (e.g., England in 1780 listed some 350 capital offences).

Even though a house of correction was built in Amsterdam in 1595 and even though Pennsylvania decreed in 1682 that imprisonment should supplant all other sanctions for major crimes except capital punishment for homicide, it was not until 1790 that the Pennsylvania Quakers could establish the more humane way of penal sanctions. Originally they wished to secure a way to isolate offenders from their cor­rupting peers and to force them to reflect on their sins in their separate cells. They expected that this would render the of­fender penitent — hence "penitentiaries" — and result in his reformation. The dan­gers of isolation appear to have been ig­nored. Others added to this concept the idea of possible benefits from forced la­bor, in silence. This altered concept spread over North America and across the ocean.

Several penitentiaries were built in Canada during the 1870s, in Quebec (1873), in Manitoba (1877), in B.C. (1878), and in New Brunswick (1880). Others followed. These imposing for­tresses, usually built away from popula­tion centres, could almost be regarded as symbols of the righteousness of the com­munity. After all, one can point a finger at the outcast wrongdoers and so declare one's own behavior as just and legal. However, other kinds of institutions were built in Canada, to a total of fifty-nine to­day, but too many will be required if our society continues to expect only the gov­ernment to deal with offenders. Prisons cannot be expected to rehabilitate people, for that is an impossible task and it dimin­ishes the responsibility of the offender. Prisons cannot be expected to effectively reduce crime either, for they deal with on­ly 1% or less of those who are involved in illegal activities.

Prison Population🔗

When addressing a youth Bible study society once, I was asked, "What are those prison inmates like?" My answer was: "Most of them are like you and me, for they are sinful people with a wide range of personalities; you should be very thankful for having been born into the family/community you did." Of course, there are obvious differences, but "crimi­nals" are often seen as lesser beings and non-members of a community. But what really is a criminal? One who broke the law? Once ... or twice? Is he therefore a criminal for life? "Once a thief — always a thief"? I trust you do not imprint that on the mind of your child who again stole a cookie or a dime, for I have regretfully seen too many such prophesies fulfilled. Discipline him, no doubt; but do not add harm to injury by ruining his self-concept as a child of God.

Nevertheless, most offenders are not like you and me for the positive develop­ment of inner controls, respect for justice, and the gracious covenant distinction are usually quite apparent in most believers. Some offenders obsessively maintain their criminal lifestyle, irrespective of all warn­ings, consequences, punishments, and op­portunities they have experienced. But should every prisoner be labelled as a "criminal" in that sense and so be brand­ed for the rest of his life? I trust not.


Parole is the procedure whereby a convicted person is granted a conditional release from a penal institution to serve the balance of his sentence in the community under decreasing conditions and supervision. Until 1898 prisoners could be released prior to the expiry of sentence only by a Royal Act — the Royal Prerogative of Mercy.

Parole in Canada has its roots in the Ticket-of-Leave legislation of 1898 which enabled the Governor in Council to re­lease inmates. This process, aided by the Remission Service, lasted until 1959 when the Parole Act was proclaimed following recommendations by documents such as the Archambeault Report (1938) and the Fauteaux Report (1956). This new act was called an "Act to Provide for the Condi­tional Liberation of Persons Undergoing Sentence of Imprisonment." The Remis­sion Service was abolished and an inde­pendent National Parole Board (NPB) was established with a Parole Service.

After a few years, the initial five-member board was increased to allow members to interview all inmates in insti­tutions across the country. Regionaliza­tion in 1973 resulted in the placement of nine members at the Ottawa headquarters and about four fulltime members at each of the five regional offices. Ontario, Que­bec and B.C. have their own parole boards dealing with inmates serving less­-than-two-year terms in those provinces.

The Parole Act of 1959 was amended in 1969 and 1977. Under the act, the Gov­ernor in Council set out regulations pre­scribing the portion of the term of impris­onment that an inmate must serve in an institution before parole may be granted. Generally speaking, this amounts to one-third of the sentence or seven years, whichever is less. For where violent con­duct was involved, half of the sentence must be served or seven years, whichever is less. Life sentences require ten and twenty-five years, or whatever is indicated by the court, as the portion to be served in prison before a parole can even be consid­ered. Judges are aware, of course, of these regulations in pronouncing their sentences. They often make their reasons known to the Board and may add their support or opposition to a future parole. Even though the Board has exclusive jurisdic­tion and absolute discretion to grant, deny, or revoke parole, the Board highly respects, appreciates, and generally abides by the court's recommendations, if any.

To protect society properly, one can­not just take away one's freedom for a few years and then expect the person to re­turn as a better citizen. One cannot just expect him to have become more in tune with a citizen's duties and responsibilities than he was before he went to prison. Such elements of citizenship are precisely the ones he could hardly learn or practise in prison. Deprivation of liberty, or the very nature of imprisonment, diminish or take away the practice of such fundamen­tal elements of citizenship. The communi­ty cannot just write him off when he is sentenced, for he will be back sooner or later (and that is no threat). One should at least remember that most federal prison­ers serve between two- and four-year terms.

The NPB can be regarded as the com­munity's input towards the offender's re­integration into the community. Board members are appointed for a five-year term from any profession or vocation. They can impose special conditions on any release, but the Board cannot prevent any­one from being released on Mandatory Supervision.

Mandatory Supervision🔗

The Penitentiary Act provided that a person serving a fixed term of imprisonment shall be credited upon admis­sion with statutory remission of one-quar­ter of his sentence, subject to good be­havior. This proved to be an effective tool in the prisons. In addition, the inmate could earn three days remission for each month if he applied himself industriously. However, these provisions were changed by a legislative act in 1969-70. Federal in­mates must now earn all of that remission.

Therefore, inmates can now earn up to one-third of their prison term. How­ever, the act also states that, if such a re­lease from a federal prison is longer than sixty days, the offender is subject to parole conditions and Mandatory Supervi­sion (MS) during the remaining time spent in the community. Unsatisfactory per­formance will result in a return to prison and the Board may revoke his MS. He must then again serve two-thirds of what was left over before again being released on MS.

Such persons were denied parole; they usually display an uncooperative atti­tude, for they resist intervention, based on "their right" to be released. More than 50% return to prison as they are generally problematic in the community.

CSC — Executors of Punishment?🔗

Reasons for imprisonment are usual­ly to remove a serious threat and/or to strongly denounce the offender's action or omission. The sentence constitutes the punishment and "corrections" are not to inflict further punishment. The length of a sentence cannot be altered, but under legislative acts the degree of deprivation of liberty can be reduced or increased. Therefore the controls and restrictions placed on one's liberty constitute the pun­ishment and the deprivation of freedom can be served in an institution or in the community.

While moving away from the "treatment model" towards the "opportunities model," the offender is to be held respon­sible and accountable for his behavior. This means that he must also be enabled to make choices and to demonstrate im­proved, responsible conduct.

Although isolated and deprived of his liberties, the inmate is not relieved of all his obligations as a citizen. To meet these obligations, duties, and responsibilities, the CSC involves both the community and the offender in working towards appro­priate ways of reintegration.

The sentence as punishment is restric­tive but should not become repressive. Ar­bitrary exercising of authority and power may lead to vindictive decisions that will only substantiate the sayings that "prison is the breeding ground of crime" and "a means to perpetuate the criminal justice industry."

Regard for the offender as a member of society is and should be basic to the correctional process as well as to all crimi­nal justice agencies. One must admit that this principle is often neglected by individ­uals who may have lost sight of the overall system, its purpose, and its particular as well as peculiar position. "Love thy neigh­bor as thyself" and the fifth command­ment as explained in the Heidelberg Cate­chism (Q & A 104) certainly provide food for positive thought in this respect.

Not all rights and privileges are lost through imprisonment. That is another stated principle, for inmates are not to be­come the property of a warden. Unjusti­fied, petty, and perhaps vengeful restric­tions will reduce chances of one's be­coming a responsible citizen and can result in institutional strife and disrup­tion. On the other hand, permissiveness may lead to a minimized sense of respon­sibility. At present, the service is continu­ally struggling with enunciation of regulations, procedures, and methods of imple­mentation to strike a sensible balance.

Privileges and the maintenance of privileges are to be earned. All prison in­mates are to be involved in constructive activities. Parolees are expected to fulfill all legal and social responsibilities just like other citizens. "Taxusers" are to become "taxpayers." This concept, hopefully, is slowly gaining momentum.

Deprivation of liberty constitutes the punishment, and CSC can have effective control in the institution and in the com­munity to protect society and to secure ef­fective reintegration.

Parole — A Justifiable Service?🔗

In addition to the above, a few reasons may need to be emphasized to justify the existence of a parole system. In certain cases, a parole may reduce the damaging effects of imprisonment. What these are requires the writing of a book. The possibility of parole often encourages positive behavior and participation in in­stitutional programs. Experienced field workers will soon detect manipulations in this respect.

Parole bridges the transition from a restrictive, dependent, and controlled prison existence to a life in the communi­ty. This benefits both the offender and the community. Serving his sentence in the community on parole allows the offender to be a wage earner and taxpayer, to sup­port his family, and to contribute to com­munity life. It also costs the taxpayers a lot less than imprisonment: about one-tenth. After all, whom do we serve or who are our clients? The public, the taxpayers.

Parole continues to restrict the of­fender's activities and freedom, but it also allows him to grow and establish a crime-free life. Social workers may pose these aspects as an unnatural, impossible dual­ism, but that is a false dichotomy, for re­striction of freedom and encouragement of growth are simply two sides of one coin. Exercising control and assisting in growth — is that not what "correction" should be all about?

Parole — On What Criteria?🔗

When a parole officer is required to make recommendation to the Board for a decision to deny or grant a pa­role, he is not alone. Members in the com­munity, as well as institutional staff and the inmate, are consulted and involved in the process. Together they review and as­sess the nature and gravity of the offence, the extent of involvement, the demon­strated degree of remorse and level of con­cern, as well as the restoration made to­ward the victim or the need and ability to do so, the pattern and length of his crimi­nal history, the sentence, the court's in­tent, as well as efforts made to improve, the possibility of again becoming involved in criminal activities, and the readiness of the community to receive him and to pro­vide support where and when required.

When the sentence appears not to have had any effect, or when the offender poses a risk to offend again or to be a threat to society, as well as when a release would generally depreciate the seriousness of the offence and promote disrespect of the law, who could or would recommend an early release?

Misplaced Criticism🔗

In preparation of a parole or for humanitarian reasons, an inmate may be granted an Unescorted Temporary Ab­sence (UTA). One may from time to time read in the daily news that an offence was committed by an offender on leave. Usually not all the facts are correctly reported. Let it suffice to state that over the past five years an average of 99.6% of these leaves were successfully completed with­out any incident.

Another area of confusion is the Mandatory Supervision. Although an of­fender is under supervision, he is not, as often reported, granted an earned parole, but is released by statute. He may be an uncooperative, unwilling candidate who did not get a parole or already lost a pa­role; i.e., "il ne donnait pas sa parole" (he did not give his word).

A certain degree of ignorance is often displayed by broadcasters and reporters. For example, a reporter stated that an ap­pealed murder conviction was reduced to manslaughter, adding that the prison term was increased from a minimum of 10 years to 20 years. However, any murder conviction results in a life sentence. Therefore, the 20-year sentence in this case is a reduced one, and the 10 years mentioned is only the date of eligibility for parole.

Others may quote a judge stating that the NPB shortens the sentence by releasing inmates on early Mandatory Supervi­sion. This is utter nonsense, for no one can shorten a sentence except the courts. Neither does the NPB grant Mandatory Supervision, let alone an early one.

Parole Supervisors🔗

Although the above may show that this parole officer can "bite," the parole supervisor must make sound and realistic judgments of all the investigative material he obtained or received. He must also make a fair, clear, and honest assess­ment of the offender and the community. The Board may greatly rely on his integri­ty before arriving at a decision.

Therefore, a parole supervisor is ex­pected to be a capable judge of character and human behavior in general. He is not what one may call a "bleeding heart" or "Bible pusher," he is not trying to overturn the court's sentence, and he will not abuse his power to return a parolee to prison on a whim or personal dislike. He will clearly distinguish fact from fiction, fair judgment from prejudice, and he will strike a realistic, reasonable balance between serving justice and compassion, be­tween serving the community and the individual. No person can be that perfect; that is why checks and balances are in place to prevent abuse or sliding off track. These include progress reporting requirements, superiors who sign the actual warrant of suspension, as well as suspension hearings by the board and other internal controls.

The most important aspect of the pa­role supervisor's work is the actual super­vision in the community. He does not just receive the parolee in his office as often as required and sign the certificate, nor does he spend most of his time in the communi­ty running around to check up on his "boys." Involvement in a case ranges per­haps somewhere in between these ex­tremes. Sometimes therapeutic interven­tion in employment, his family, or other relationships is required. With other cases, daily contact is necessary to allevi­ate, for example, suicidal feelings or other intentions. Once a problem area can be clearly defined or isolated, referrals are made and monitored. Each case is differ­ent from the next, and one must guard against prejudicial influences.

To properly exercise his powers, du­ties, and responsibilities, it is my belief that an initial establishment of trust with his client is required of the officer. The best opportunity for starting such a rela­tionship is during the preparation for a parole. Recommendations to grant a pa­role are not to be made to score popularity points or because the parole officer likes his client, pities his family, or disagrees with the judge. On the contrary, confrontation about the seriousness of the of­fence, the necessity of a sentence, demon­stration of change, lack of guilt, remorse, or concern, and the reality of his situa­tion, are to form the basis for an honest, open, and fair relationship he can rely on. Establishing such a solid rapport often means running the risk of drawing hatred instead, at least for a while.

Once a fellow accused me of my un-­Christian attitude for daring to question his expressed certainty that God had for­given him and that as a Christian he would never be able to do such a crime again. He opened the Bible he carried with him and quoted 1 John 2:12 and 3:9. He felt I should have responded with: "Hallelu­jah!" or "Praise the Lord!" However, he could not answer my questions about the basis for his certainty and a reason for having been forgiven. A volunteer visitor had convinced him, he said. He was stun­ned and dismayed when I reminded him about his vindictive offence and when I read Chapter 2:4, "He who says 'I know Him' but disobeys His commandments is a liar," etc. We read more, also verse 3 and Romans 3:20 and following chapters. He requested consequent meetings, also with other team members present. Although he was later only moved to a less secure institution, an appropriate rap­port was nevertheless established which may in the future function as a more ef­fective basis than the position of power and authority.

However, there are as many ways of living up to the expectations of a parole supervisor as there are supervisors. They all come from differing backgrounds with a wide assortment of characters, philoso­phies, education, and experience. Never­theless, their main goal is to serve society and justice in the best way they know how.

Public pressure on the government to increase sentences will not likely solve the crime problem, for less than one percent of the offenders end up in a federal pris­on. To send more people to prison and to add laws to imprison those who display primarily social problems, only increases the criminal justice industry and provides more Canadians with a damaging criminal record. Such suggestions are usually based on the false premise that crime can be beaten. Even if prisons could work mir­acles, the impact on the offence rate would be minimal and never solve the crime problem.

Increased community involvement is called for, in the courts, in prisons, but more so in combatting crime. Arrest shop­lifters, for example, and fight fellow em­ployees' pilfering. Overuse of the most se­vere sanction in Canada, imprisonment, will reduce its deterrent effect. One who hits his child for every infraction will have to beat him more and more to have any ef­fect. Growth towards independence will then be no more than escape from author­ity. A change in the court system towards cooperation to reach a fair, just, and quick decision is another area the commu­nity should become involved in.

The tendency to have the police, courts, and corrections take care of any difficulties with some community mem­bers, appears to be a Canadian attitude that requires a change. Who can best com­bat crime? You and all of us, but not by just spending more money on additional prisons or a "Calvary" next to every city, but rather by supporting the work done and by becoming personally involved. Crime cannot be beaten, but it can be reduced by you and me, each in his own position.

Any views expressed in this paper are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Correc­tional Service of Canada.

Add new comment

(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.