Temporary Absence, Work-release and Community Based Corrections in Ontario
| Author | Richard G. Fox |
| DOI | 10.1177/000486587100400106 |
| Published date | 01 March 1971 |
| Date | 01 March 1971 |
46 AUST. &N.Z. JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY (March, 1971): 4, 1
Temporary
Absence,
Work
-
release
and Community Based
Corrections
in
Ontario
RICHARD G.
FOX·
RECENTLY
readers
of
this
journal
have
enjoyed
the
benefit of comment,
from
both
sides of
the
Tasman,
encouraging
the
view
that
adoption of
work-release, periodic
detention
and
other
semi-custodial measures is
urgently
needed
to increase
the
number
of available
alternatives
to prtson.'
The
paper
by Seymour developed
the
thesis
that
the
next
few decades will
see
much
more
experimentation
in
the
area
of corrections lying between
probation
and
the
closed
institution,
while Biles' contribution
set
out, in
detail,
firm
proposals for
the
introduction
of work-release
in
Victorian
prisons.
There
is little doubt
that
the
prediction of increased
experimentation
is well rounded,s
and
that
the
pattern
of
change
is
already
sufficiently
estab-
lished
to
warrant
confident
belief
that
some
form
of work-release will soon
be a
feature
of
most
western
correctional systems.
This
paper
seeks to
contribute
to
the
work-release dialogue by
commenting
upon
the
con-
ceptualization of
such
programmes
and
by describing a newly
introduced
Canadian
scheme
containing
features
which
go considerably beyond Biles'
recommendations,
but
Which, nonetheless,
'appear
workable
and
effective
in
operation.
The
practice
of allowing selected
adult
prisoners
temporary
leave from
their
institution
for work, educational, or
urgent
family purposes is
not
new. As Biles points out,
the
systematic provision of
temporary
absence
privileges for outside work
can
be
traced
back
at
least
as
far
as Wisconsin's
1913
Huber
Law
although,
according to some authorities,
its
origins
may
be
dated
even earlier.3Nowadays schemes
which
permit
the
temporary
absence
of prisoners,
in
order
to accommodate
extra-mural
work activities, exist in
*
L~.M.
(Melb.), Dip Crim., Associate Professor, Faculty of Law,
and
Senior Research
Associate, Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto. The
assistance
of Mrs.
Francie Smith and
the
co-operation of officers of the Ontario Department of
Correctional Services, particularly Dr. C. T. Surridge
and
Dr. J. J. Hug of
the
research
branch, is gratefully acknowledged.
1. Biles D. (1970), "A Proposal for
Work
Release for
Prisoners
in Victoria",
Aust.
&N.Z.
Jour.
Criminol.
3, 156;
Seymour
J.A. (1970),
"The
Penal
System: ADeveloping
Pattern",
Aust.
&N.Z. Jour.
Criminol.
3, 166; Kerr, S (1970)
"Work
Release of
Prisoners"
(Corres-
pondence)
Aust.
N.Z. J.
Criminol.
3, 246.
2. The
papers
presented
at
the
1969
Canadian
Congress of Corrections
held
in Vancouver
strongly
support
Seymour's
prediction. The
papers
are
reproduced
in (1970) Can. Jour.
Corrections
12, 342-548. See
also
The
Criminal
Offender-What
Should Be Done?
Report
of
the
President's
Task
Force
on
Prisoner
Rehabilitation
Washington
D.C. (1970); Non-
Custodial
and Semi-Custodial Penalties,
Report
of
the
Advisory Council on
the
Penal
System, H.M.S.O. (1970).
3.
Grupp
S.E. (1970),
"Work
Furlough
and
Punishment
Theory",
Criminology
8, 63.
AUST. &N.Z. JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY (March, 1971): 4, 1 47
amajority of American states, in England, Northern Ireland
and
New
Zealand as well as in a large number of European countrres.s
Although they
are
all relatively simple
and
mechanistic in operation,
the
underlying conceptualization of work-release
and
similar plans is ex-
tremely varied
and
encompasses a wide range of different objectives. The
programmes
are
described variously as a condition or special form of proba-
tion, as a bridge between imprisonment
and
free society, as a method of
testing suitability for parole before final decision is reached, or simply as a
means of mitigating
the
harshness of institutional life. Occasionally they
are
seen as special forms of pre-release preparation and, as such, may be
linked to
the
use of quasi-institutional techniques such as half-way houses
and
hostels.
In
some jurisdictions
the
trial
judge is empowered to authorize
work-release when imposing asentence of imprisonment but, more
commonly,
the
enabling legislation vests
the
discretion entirely in correc-
tional administrators who are presumably to
act
in response to
their
own
perception of
the
purpose of a court imposed sentence.s Some forms of
legislation restrict eligibility to misdemeanants or felons, place
area
or
population limits on
the
operation of
the
plan, or define eligible candidates
by reference to type of offence, length of sentence, or
the
personal circum-
stances of
the
offender
and
his dependants. The different labels
attached
to
these schemes bear witness to
the
diversity of approach, viz.: "work-release",
"work-furlough", "day-parole", "out-make programme", "free-work",
"intermittent
jailing",
"extra-mural
private employment"
and
so forth.
Work release
and
similar plans have also been described as
an
important
part
of
the
"third
world" in correcttons.s
Inasmuch
as most correctional
systems provide for
either
complete removal of
the
offender from
the
com-
munity, or almost complete freedom within it, temporary absence pro-
grammes are claimed to be unique correctional devices in
that
they de-
liberately make use of
the
same type of control processes as
can
be found in
conventional groups
and
much
of
the
artificia~ity
of incarceration, as a
form of control, is said to be eliminated.
In
recent years atendency
has
developed to descrbe temporary release
plans under
the
umbrella of "community work for prisoners" or "community
based correctional progammes",? Insofar as
the
description makes reference
4. See generally:
Grupp
S.E. (1963),
"Work
Release in
the
United
States",
Jour.
Crim. Law,
Criminol
&P.S. 54 267; Special Issue (1964),
"Part-time
Prisoner: The
Work
Release Pro-
gramme",
Prison
Journal
44 (1);
Grupp
S.E. (1965),
"Work
Release
and
the
Misdemeanant",
Federal
Probation
29 (2); 6; Long E.V. (1965),
"The
Prisoner
Rehabilitation
Act
of 1965",
Federal
Probation
29 (4), 3; U.S.
Senate
Judiciary
Committee (1965),
Prison
Work
Release,
U.S.
Government
Printing
Office,
Washington
D.C.;
Freedman
M. &
Pappas
N. (1967), The
Training
and
Employment
oj
Offenders, Reference
paper
submitted
to
the
President's
Commission on
Law
Enforcement
and
Administration
of Justice; Bachman D.O. (1968),
Work
Release
Programmes
jor
Adult
Felons in the
United
States: A
Descriptive
Study,
Research Monograph
No.3,
Florida Division of Corrections;
Ayer
W.A. (1970),
"Work
Release
Programmes
in
the
United
States;
Some Difficulties
Encountered",
Federal
Probation
34 (1), 53;
Johnson
E'.H. (1970),
"Report
on
Innovation-State
Work-Release
Programmes",
Crime
and
Delinq.
16, 417.
5. The
question
of how
far
judicial
control
of
sentencing
can
or
should
be
undercut
by
correctional
adminstrators
is discussed by Seymour, ibid.
note
1,
at
pp, 176-180.
6.
Zalba
S.R.. (1967),
"Work-Release-A
Two
Pronged
Effort",
Crime
and
Delinq.
13, 506.
7. American Correctional Association (1966),
Manual
oj
Correctional
Standards Ch. 8;
"Community
Correctional
Centres";
Richmond M.D. (ed) 1967,
"Community
Work
An
Alternative
to
Imprisonment,
Correctional
Research
Associates,
Washington
D.C.; Nelson
E.K. (1967),
Community
Based Correctional
Treatment;
Rationales
and
Problems", The
Annals
374, 82;
Report
of
President's
Task
Force
on
Prisoner
Rehabilitation, ibid.
note
2;
Seymour, ibid.
note
1,
at
pp. 182-183.
To continue reading
Request your trial