Getting the usual treatment: research censorship and the dangerous offender

Abstract

In the course of finishing dissertation research, this author encountered a wall of opposition from the Canadian penitentiary service and parole board to his proposal. For political reasons they opposed research on dangerous offenders from the perspective of ‘convict criminology’, concluding: ‘This proposal does not reflect CSC [Correctional Service of Canada] priorities and service objectives, and would result in disruption to institutional operations.’ For a period of two months, this criminologist was barred from all penitentiaries in Ontario and could not interview any prisoner. Complaints were made to Members of Parliament including the then‐Solicitor General of Canada, as well as the Office of the Correctional Investigator; even the University tried to censor the project. This article seeks to place this episode in the context of the historic marginalization to which critical and convict criminology have been subjected. It will document how the state controls the criminological research agenda and what happens when ‘voices from below’ want to have a say in penological research. Of related interest will be a discussion of how a university research ethics committee, in conjunction with the penitentiary service, tried to stop this project.

Keywords:

• censorship
• convict criminology
• ideology
• dangerous offenders
• research agenda

Notes

1. A full copy of the questionnaire is available from the author.

2. I later learned that the Warden of Kingston Penitentiary did not support the research project: ‘I am not convinced that there is a significant value added for the CSC.’ Correspondence dated October 22, 2003, by Nancy L. Stableforth, Deputy Regional Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada.

3. See Commissioner’s Directive: Research (CD‐009), issued June 30, 2004, by the Correctional Service of Canada, accompanied by Guidelines to CD‐009 (six pages with appendices).

4. Correspondence from the Hon. John M. Reid, Information Commissioner of Canada, dated July 22, 2004, and dated August, 25, 2004.

5. Letter to the author from the Office of Research Services, Carleton University, October 14, 2005.

6. On September 9, 2004, I filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Canada, challenging the rulings of the Information Commissioner of Canada, the National Parole Board, and the Correctional Service of Canada. See Yeager v. National Parole Board et al. On January 29, 2008, Mr. Justice Shore issued his opinion denying me access to the names of dangerous offenders, their prison locations, their FPS numbers, and any decisions about them from the National Parole Board. This was based on the sole issue of privacy protection, notwithstanding that there is a process within the Privacy Act of Canada (Section 8) that allows the release of this information to researchers who agreed to be bound by Treasury Board guidelines on the protection of human subjects. In effect, the Canadian prison system can censor whatever research it designates as not in the ‘public interest’. See Yeager v. Canada (National Parole Board) [2008].