Disciplinary Paternalism and Resistance in Ontario’s Forensic Mental Health System

Constructing Risk through Jurisdictional Talk: The Ontario Review Board Process under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code

“…It further demands NCR individuals’ incorporation of this jurisdictional talk into their “‘embrained’ existence” or subjectivity: their absolute discharge depends on the incremental progress of rewiring one’s brain through a regime of medication, insight into and managing one’s desires for substances, and developing capacities to work and support oneself. As our files made clear, it includes the somatic performance of dressing oneself appropriately, appearing one’s age, and having a good, normal odour and affect (see Kennedy et al 2023). Each deviation from this idealized image is indicative of a lack of certain properties as a free human, and correspondingly greater legitimacy for the ORB’s control.…”

“…For some, the NCR process is an interminable sentence that totalizes punishment and administrative control in every domain of life, contrary to the stated purposes of rehabilitation. There are others, including NCR individuals, who view the NCR process in its design and implementation as legitimate (Livingston et al 2016); however, our reading of the literature (and the statements of NCR individuals in dispositions and their supporting documents) suggests there are penumbral cases where risk is constructed in ways contrary to the law’s purpose, that is, less about public safety and more about medico-legal visions of how a good, productive, and independent person appears and acts (also see Tyler et al 2023; Kennedy et al 2023).…”