E. Principles
The proposals and recommendations which we make grow out of a set of principles which the John Howard Society articulated in 1985 and have been the basis for analysis of current public issues since that time (John Howard Society of Ontario, 1985). The proposals put forth are influenced by current and past research which demonstrates policies, programs and services which increase the likelihood of a person who has committed criminal offences to re-establish themselves constructively in the community.

It is clear that we live in a society that sets rules of behaviour for its citizens and that society sometimes turns to the criminal justice system to respond when individuals violate those rules. One purpose of a criminal justice system is to reinforce the notion that the rules are still valid and respected by the population as a whole. Another purpose of a criminal justice system is to encourage those who have violated the laws, as well as those who might be tempted to violate the laws in the future, to live in law-abiding ways.

The consequence of violating the law is punishment. We believe that the criminal justice system is not the only or best way to encourage compliance with the law. Coercion can be used effectively to block morally undesirable behaviour, but it is not an effective tool for motivating people to undertake morally acceptable actions.

Community based methods of encouraging acceptable behaviour should take precedence over the use of the criminal justice system whenever possible. Schools, family and other social organizations and institutions should be encouraged and supported in their key role to build a safe and peaceful society.

In our society, punishment is often seen to be an appropriate and logical consequence of the criminal act of the individual. In response to this expectation of punishment, we have established a system of criminal justice to determine guilt and punish the offender. Because we would defeat the purpose of encouraging compliance with the law and only ensure our future victimization by applying excessive and/or brutal punishments, we have set limits to the punishments that can be used. These two principles of sentencing characterize the criminal justice systems in modern civilized societies. Principles that apply to sentencing which the John Howard Society supports are contained in the principles attached to Canadian sentencing legislation for both young people and adults. These sentencing principles include the following:

• The least onerous punishment should be used that can be justified. We support a proportional sentencing model that considers the use of imprisonment as a last resort and intrudes into a person s life only to the extent that can be clearly justified.
• Punishment should involve the loss of choice or freedoms and nothing more. Punishment which involves physical or mental torture, deprivations of the necessities of life, or which are demeaning or humiliating are rejected.

The application of punishment falls to correctional officials. It is their responsibility to see that the sentence stipulated by the courts is carried out within the law. While they have the legal mandate to apply the specific deprivations of freedom and choice which have been authorized by the sentence, it is also their responsibility to provide for the care of those in their charge to ensure that there are no unintended consequences of the punishment which are dehumanizing or destructive to the individual. We consider that a correctional system that is more constructive than harmful to the individual and the community must operate according to the following additional principles:

• Corrections officials have an obligation to make available to those in its care those programs and services that our society feels obliged to offer its members generally. We cannot expect offenders to live successfully in the community if they have been deprived of those services and programs which we provide to individuals in the community.
• Services and programs should be provided on the basis of need rather than desert. Deprivation of important services and programs for punitive purposes only serves to deny the obvious interest which society has in seeing the offender change his or her behaviour.
• Coercive measures taken by correctional officials should be no more than is needed to ensure that the sentence of the court is carried out. Levels of security within institutions and decisions to place a person in an institution as opposed to a community setting should be determined by the willingness and ability of the individual to abide by the rules. Levels of security should not be used for additional punitive purposes
• Appropriate measures must be in place to ensure the safety of those in custody. Exposure to assaults and violence generates defences which will inevitably undermine any rehabilitative efforts.
• Rules of fundamental justice must characterize the administration of correctional programs. The correctional environment must model the values and attitudes which we expect offenders to adopt.

It is our view that these principles apply to those that are being dealt with as young offenders as much as they apply to adult offenders. It is also our view that the importance of the principles are both obvious and largely non-controversial. Application of the principles, however, will be difficult unless the principles are kept in mind during the drafting of law and the design and implementation of correctional programs. For these principles to be applied thoughtfully and effectively it is clear that their reasoned application must take into consideration the fact that young offenders are distinguishable from adult offenders by a number of important criteria. The design of criminal justice processes and social institutions must recognize these differences or they will fail to uphold the principles.

We feel that most of our recommendations are simply obvious choices once the principles and the research are understood. At the same time we recognize that the field of criminal justice is poorly understood by many. False information and environments that are hostile to measured reason militate against our proposals. We believe that if the public was informed of the reality of youth crime in Canada, most Canadians would see the importance of the principles outlined above and promote social policy for young offenders which strengthened currently existing social institutions and organizations focusing primarily on the value of rehabilitation for the long term protection of society. We must first address the matter of public opinion and support for reform before drafting new legislation for young offenders.