Law360 Canada (October 5, 2026, 1:55 PM EDT) --
 |
| Harpreet Ahuja |
For close to three years, I served as an external independent decision-maker for B.C. provincial correctional facilities. I decided if a prisoner was guilty of breaking a rule, and I handed down the penalty. My job was to maintain institutional safety and rehabilitate behaviour. The reality is, it didn’t work.
The reality of prison hearings
The failure wasn’t due to a lack of structure. The 10 prisons where I worked all had the same
28 rules governing prisoner conduct. The most common violations involved possession of contraband (which can include a homemade shank or prison brew) and threatening or assaulting staff or other people in custody. When it was time for their hearing, prisoners were handcuffed and escorted to a small room by one or two guards, depending on the risk classification level. Inside, an officer sat at a desk, tasked with presenting the institution’s case. Behind a raised bench, the adjudicator appeared on a screen presiding over the room virtually as part of COVID-19 protocols. And trapped in the middle stood the prisoner — often shoulder-to-shoulder with the very guard who accused them. The atmosphere in the room was often one of “I gotcha.”
ham prakash: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
Of the 892 prisoners whose cases I heard, only 31 (three per cent) had legal representation. Most were self-represented, unable to find or afford a lawyer. The average individual standing before me had a seventh-grade education; many struggled to read, and some were illiterate. Though I was tasked with verifying the validity of each guilty plea, few ever tried to challenge the institution’s evidence. Most walked into the room knowing they had already lost, even if they
hadn’t committed the violation or had been put up to it — the risk of retaliation from an officer or a “heavy” (a high-level gang member) for not taking the fall simply wasn’t worth it. Spending more time in “the hole” had become their safer, better option.
When prisoners were charged after an incident and awaiting their hearings, the institutions most often placed them in the hole — administrative segregation — making release from isolation their primary goal. When asked whether they would like to share their side of the story, many offered the same response: “No, I just want to get this over with.” Before they even reached me, the institution had battered them down by turning the key and walking away.
Inside the hole
Segregation — the hole — meant confinement for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact for up to 15 days, and it was a penalty at my disposal. I understood it was inhumane, and for long periods amounted to
torture, yet it was widely condoned and expected. Prison culture equated segregation with justice served. Bound by the law, I had
six penalties available to me, none of which addressed the root cause of the prisoners’ behaviour, restored trust on the range or allowed for forgiveness. While I could issue warnings, restrict programs, impose extra duties (such as cleaning), limit their time out on the range, or forfeit earned remission (effectively extending their sentences), the ultimate punishment was segregation. I faced a revolving door of the most vulnerable individuals, the ones staff labelled “frequent flyers.”
‘Punishing harder’ doesn’t work
The institution could rationally justify its position using policy and procedure, resulting in a finding of guilt, which carried consequences beyond the penalty I imposed. The impact on the prisoner was an internal record of misconduct that hindered their ability to apply for better conditions of confinement or early release, and if on remand, could prejudice their criminal trial.
If a prisoner appeared before me again and was found guilty of breaking a similar rule, established practice mandated the use of progressive discipline. This meant penalties escalated with each infraction — for example, moving from a warning or extra duties (such as a written apology) to restricted time on the range or a longer segregation sentence. But this did nothing to de-escalate tension or prevent the same reaction, starting the cycle all over again.
Every person sent to the hole eventually comes back out to the range, and inevitably, to our communities. When we choose isolation, we aren’t making prisons safer; instead, we are attempting to reintegrate traumatized people — who have been further damaged by the system. Only by transforming how discipline is enforced can we begin to change institutional culture.
Author’s note: The cases are drawn from my experience as an external independent decision-maker presiding over disciplinary hearings for B.C. Corrections (2021-2023). Identifying details have been changed to respect confidentiality and protect privacy.
Harpreet Ahuja is a lawyer, human rights consultant and social justice advocate. Her work explores the intersection of law, policy and lived experience — and tells the human stories behind injustice. Ahuja is based in Vancouver and publishes on her website.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.