Priscilla Ferrazzi1, Terry Krupa2. 1. Queen's University, 31 George Street, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada. Electronic address: ferrazzi@ualberta.ca. 2. Queen's University, 31 George Street, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Rehabilitation-oriented criminal court mental health initiatives to reduce the number of people with mental illness caught in the criminal justice system exist in many North American cities and elsewhere but not in the mainly Inuit Canadian Arctic territory of Nunavut. OBJECTIVE: This study explores whether the therapeutic aims of these resource-intensive, mainly urban initiatives can be achieved in criminal courts in Nunavut's resource constrained, culturally distinct and geographically remote communities. METHOD: A qualitative multiple-case study in the communities of Iqaluit, Arviat and Qikiqtarjuaq involved 55 semi-structured interviews and three focus groups with participants representing four sectors essential to these initiatives: justice, health, community organizations and community members. These interviews explored whether the therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) principles that guide criminal court mental health initiatives and the component objectives of these principles could be used to improve the criminal court response to people with mental illness in Nunavut. RESULTS: Interviews revealed 13 themes reflecting perceptions of Inuit culture's influence on the identification of people with mental illness, treatment, and collaboration between the court and others. These themes include cultural differences in defining mental illness, differences in traditional and contemporary treatment models, and the importance of mutual cultural respect. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest Inuit culture, including its recent history of cultural disruption and change, affects the vulnerability of Nunavut communities to the potential moral and legal pitfalls associated with TJ and criminal court mental health initiatives. These pitfalls include the dominance of biomedical approaches when identifying a target population, the medicalization of behaviour and culture, the risk of "paternalism" in therapeutic interventions, and shortcomings in interdisciplinary collaboration that limit considerations of Inuit culture. The pitfalls are not fatal to efforts to bring the rehabilitative benefits of these initiatives to Nunavut, but they require careful vigilance when employing TJ principles in an Indigenous circumpolar context.
RATIONALE: Rehabilitation-oriented criminal court mental health initiatives to reduce the number of people with mental illness caught in the criminal justice system exist in many North American cities and elsewhere but not in the mainly Inuit Canadian Arctic territory of Nunavut. OBJECTIVE: This study explores whether the therapeutic aims of these resource-intensive, mainly urban initiatives can be achieved in criminal courts in Nunavut's resource constrained, culturally distinct and geographically remote communities. METHOD: A qualitative multiple-case study in the communities of Iqaluit, Arviat and Qikiqtarjuaq involved 55 semi-structured interviews and three focus groups with participants representing four sectors essential to these initiatives: justice, health, community organizations and community members. These interviews explored whether the therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) principles that guide criminal court mental health initiatives and the component objectives of these principles could be used to improve the criminal court response to people with mental illness in Nunavut. RESULTS: Interviews revealed 13 themes reflecting perceptions of Inuit culture's influence on the identification of people with mental illness, treatment, and collaboration between the court and others. These themes include cultural differences in defining mental illness, differences in traditional and contemporary treatment models, and the importance of mutual cultural respect. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest Inuit culture, including its recent history of cultural disruption and change, affects the vulnerability of Nunavut communities to the potential moral and legal pitfalls associated with TJ and criminal court mental health initiatives. These pitfalls include the dominance of biomedical approaches when identifying a target population, the medicalization of behaviour and culture, the risk of "paternalism" in therapeutic interventions, and shortcomings in interdisciplinary collaboration that limit considerations of Inuit culture. The pitfalls are not fatal to efforts to bring the rehabilitative benefits of these initiatives to Nunavut, but they require careful vigilance when employing TJ principles in an Indigenous circumpolar context.