"I, Robert Olav Noyes,..."
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
"I, ROBERT OLAV NOYES, .. " by Bessy Koutetes B.Sc. Hons., University of Toronto, 1989 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the School of Criminology 0 Bessy Koutetes 1994 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY August 1994 All rights rese~ed.This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. APPROVAL Name: Bessy Koutetes Degree: Master of Arts Title of Thesis: "I, Robert Olav Noyes, ..." Examining Committee: Chairperson: DFothy 73~w@D- Robert Menzies, Ph.D. Professor Senior Supervisor William Glackman, Ph.D. Associate Professor stepheb D. Hart, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Psychology Department Simon Fraser University Date Approved: I Wlf, I ?,ereby grant to Sinan Frsser University the richt to lenC my thesis, project or exterdeg Fssay I:b~e title of wbich is shcwn below) to users of the Simon Fraser Sniversity LiSrary, and to make partial or single copies only for sucn bssrs or in response to a request fr~rnthe library of any other university, or other educatio~al institution, oil its own behalf or for sne of its users. I further agree that permissioi for multiple copying of this wsr4 fcr scholarly purposes nay be granied by me or the Cean of Graduate St~dies. It is understood that copying or publication of this work fe- iinancizl gain shall not Se allowed without ny written perrnlsrion. "I, Robert Olav Noyes, . TI Abstract This thesis considers how dangerousness is ascribed and censufed in Dangerous Offender hearings conducted under Part XXIV of the Canadian Criminal Code. The study explores the construction and deconstruction of dangerousness by medical and legal professionals, along with the diffusion of images about dangerous offenders contaitled in media coverage and public accounts. Consideration is given both to the power to characterize certain individuals as dangerous and to translate this classification into rnedicdegal sanctions, and to the loci, forms and extent of resistance to such control practices. A case study approach is employed, in which tbe various discourses on dangerousrress articulated in the case of one legally def'lned dangerous offender - namely Robert Olav Noyes, a British Columbia school principal convicted of sexual offences against children - are examined. Analysis concentrates on the vocabularies of censure and resistance that emerged before, during and after Noyes' 1986 dangerous offender hearing. Data sources comprise the official transcripts of the provincial Supme Court hearing; newspaper articles, editorials, features and letters to the editor; and semi-structured interviews conducted with, and mail-out questionnaires completed by, various individuals who participated in the Noyes hearing, its antecedent events ad aftermath. Qualitative analyses of these data demonstrate that clinical, legal, public and media perceptions of Noyes and his offending varied substantially. Two vocabularies of censure (medical and public protectionist discourses) and two vocabularies of resistance to censure (civil rights and critical discourses) are identified. These four discourses differed in form, function and organization, although tbere were many points of overlap in their enlistment by those involved in the Noyes hearing, and in media reporting, research questionnaires and interviews. Overall, the thesis findings substantiate the critical perspective on dangerousness that has developed aver the past two decades. Through the various accounts of the Noyes hearing that are elicited in this study, dangerousness is revealed to be a political and moral construct, whose legal ;u3d clinical properties carmot be separated from the dominant discourses and professional interests that govern its construction and mobilization in Canadian dangerous offender tribunals, and more widely in legal, clinical adpublic culm. Acknowledgements I am most grateful to the following people: The individuals and institutions who participated, in one way or another, in this study and who ultimately made this work possible. Robert Menzies, my Senior Supervisor, for his guidance, patience and ongoing support. John and Toula Koutetes, my parents, for their strength, support and encouragement. Bill Glackman and Steven Hart, members of my examining committee, for their participation, and their examination and favorable evaluation of the work. Table of Contents .. Approval ...11 Abetract Ill Acknowledgements v List of Tables viii Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1 Overview 1 1.2 The History of the Concept of Dangerousness 4 1.3 Dangerousness and the Critical Literature 6 1.4 Theoretical adPractical Objectives 10 Chapter 2: Historical Background 14 2.1 Dangerous Offender Legislation 14 2.2 The Badgley and Ftaser Committee Reports 19 2.3 Clifford Olson 27 2.4 Background to the Events Leading to hRobert Noyes Hearing 33 Chapter 3: Research Methods 44 3.1 Introduction 44 3.2 Data Sources 45 3.21 The hearing transcripts 46 3.22 Media materials 50 9Interview data 53 3.3 Limitations of the Research 63 3.4 Conclusion 64 Chapter 4: Perceptions of Noyes, his Offending and his Dangerousness 65 4.1 Introduction 65 4.2 Perceptions of Noyes Prior to 1985 66 4.3 Perceptions of Noyes, his Offending and his Dangerousness Following his Plea 75 4.31 The harm done to victims 75 4.32 The harm done to parents of victims 84 4.33 The harm done to the communities 86 4.34 Civil rights violations 89 4.35 The appropriate disposition 93 4.36 Differences betwee Noyes and otheir child sex offenders 97 4.37 Why was Noyes not reported? 103 4.38 Noyes' evasion from tbe legal authorities 107 4.39 Was Noyes dangerous? 111 4.40 Was Noyes a psychopath? 116 4.41 Was Noyes a paedophile? 122 4.42 Will Noyes ever be released? 124 4.4 Summary 127 Chapter 5: Perceptions of Dangerous Offender Legislation and Dangerousness 128 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Perceptions of Dangerous Offender Legislation 5.21 'lhobjectives of the statute 5.22 Who fell within the meaning of "dangerous offender" 5.23 Who was to be protected by the legislation and how 5.24 How did the legislation protect or not protect those against whom Dangerous Offender proceedings were brought to bear 5.25 Tbe purpose of the indeterminate sentence 5.26 The role of the expert 5.3 Perceptions of Dangerousness 5.4 Satisfaction or Dissatisfaction with Dangerous Offender kgislation and Recammendations for Change 5.5 sufnmary Chapter 6: Conclusion 6.1 Vocabularies of Censure 6.1 1 Medical discourse 6.12 Public protectionist discourse 6.2 Vocabularies of Resistance to Censure 6.21 Civil rights discourse 6.22 Critical discourse 6.3 Implications of the Research Appendix A: Dangerous Offender kgislation Appendix B: Newspaper Data References vii List of Tables Table 3.1 : Court Transcript Data 49 Table 3.2: Newspaper Data 52 Table 3.3 : Interview and Questionnaire Data 62 Table 4.1 : Noyes' Presenting Complaints, 1972- 1982 67 Table 4.2: Diagnoses of Mental Health Professionals, 1972- 1 982 69 Table 5.1 : Perceptions of Mental Health Professionals and Noyes to Questions Concerning tbe Dangerousness of all Violent and/or Sex Offenders 144 Table 5.2: Perceptions of Group 2 to Questions Concerning the Dangerousmss of all Violent and/or Sex Offenders 149 viii Chapter One Introduction 1.1 Overview This thesis concerns itself with dangerousness. In sharp contrast to the conventional clinical literature, the research that follows does not proceed on the assumption that dangerousness is a manifestation of mental illness. Its purpose is not to identify and enumerate "underlying psychopathologies" , to propose variables and factors that may assist in the accurate prediction of future dangerousness or to suggest means and methods to mitigate the harm posed by dangerous offenders. Informed by xvisionist critiques which have exposed the constitutive and shifting nature of dangerousm=ss, and the term' s " .. x t of moral panics, legislative expansion, institutional proliferation, and [in] the % .--.r WlDIdsr* .--".....**, --- -I-- -.- - 1, ascendancy of 'new' professions and intemst groups" (Menzies, 1986, p. 205), this -----R a *-.- " -* w-.,_+~ - ---_%.I.._, &'_. research examines how dangerousness is constructed and censured in the context of ,c___----- Y1___- --- - .- - - '-I--."--- <-#-------. --..'-_ .-. Dangerous Offender hearings and in and through discursive practices. It also considers pC--.-.-U pC--.-.-U ----- --11 -- - -"".---. -*C-----.------ ---. -1- k.loci, forms and extent of resistance to the exercise of power to characterize certain individuals as dangerous and to translate this classification into legal andlor other sanctions. To a large extent, the research presented in this thesis was inspired by Foucault's "I. Pierre Rivibre, .. " (1982). In that work, a number of theoretical issues and questions were raised through an examination of an 1835 parricide case. More specifically, a dossier containing medical and police reports, court exhibits including statements by witrresses, newspaper articles, court documents and RivGre's own memoir was published by Foucault in its entirety and then analyzed. The approach proved particularly effective in highlighting the different and often competing discourses on Pierre Rivihre and in reconstructing the discursive confrontations that ensued. In this thesis, a case study approach will be similarly enlisted to examine the tbeoretical issues outlined above. The case of one courtdesignated dangerous offender, Robert Olav Noyes, will serve as an exemplar of how_. dang_e;ogusx-es is_&cursiyely played out in both legal and public aFpas. %-N oy es hearing was conducted in 1986 -- -__-___ .--.- following the 38 year old school principal's plea --of - guilt- to-~g-co.~t_s~~ofindecent -_- - ." --- - assault and nine counts of sexual assault on predominantly male children. It was _h- --- selected from among 100 other Dangerous Offender hearings convened across Canada since 1977 because the unprecedented court the, rnedia attention and public notoriety that it received, thc number and variety of witnesses subphoenaed' , and the similarities and differences between Noyes and the "typical" dangerous offender permitted the 'A total of 26 Crown and three defense witnesses teeti€ied at the Noyea hearing.