Linking positive psychology to offender supervision outcomes: The mediating role of psychological flexibility, general self-efficacy, optimism, and hope

This study examines the relationships between indicators of offender supervision outcomes and dimensions of positive psychological states (PPS). Results of a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed that the first-order positive psychology constructs converge to form a higher order construct of PPS which was inversely associated with supervision outcomes. Furthermore, the mediating effect of PPS on the relationship between criminogenic risk factors and all offender supervision outcome variables was statistically significant, suggesting that offenders with heightened PPS are likely to have fewer criminogenic risk factors and are less likely to be reported for technical violation, charged, reconvicted, and imprisoned. The implications of these findings for correctional theory, practice, and policy conclude the article.

Excessive criminal punishment amounts to punishing the innocent : an argument for taking the parsimony principle seriously

Punishing the innocent is incontestably repugnant. Punishing offenders more harshly than is justified is a form of punishing the innocent, yet this practice is commonplace in the United States. This Article sets out a normative argument in favor of less severe penalties for many forms of offenses. There is already an established principle, which limits punishment to the minimum amount of hardship that is required to achieve the objectives of sentencing. The principle is termed “parsimony” and is widely endorsed. Yet, in reality, it is illusory. It has no firm content and in its current form is logically and jurisprudentially incapable of grounding a persuasive argument for more lenient sentences. This Article gives content to the principle of parsimony. It is argued that application of the principle will result in a considerable reduction in the number of offenders who are sentenced to imprisonment and shorter sentences for many offenders who are jailed. The recommendations in this Article will enhance the fairness and transparency of the sentencing system. The argument is especially important at this point in history. The United States is experiencing an incarceration crisis. The principle of parsimony, properly applied, is an important key to ameliorating the incarceration problem. The Article also examines the operation of the parsimony principle in Australia. Unlike sentencing courts in the United States, Australian judges enjoy considerable discretion in sentencing offenders. Despite the vastly different approach to sentencing in Australia, it too is experiencing a considerable increase in the incarceration rate. It emerges that the courts in a tightly regimented sentencing regime (the United States) and a mainly discretionary system (Australia) effectively ignored the parsimony principle. It is not the strictures in the United States that curtail the imposition of parsimonious sentences; rather, it is the absence of a forceful rationale underpinning the principle and a lack of clarity regarding the attainable objectives of sentencing. This Article addresses these shortcomings. In doing so, it paves the way for fundamentally fairer sentencing outcomes in the United States and Australia.

‘Cemented in their cells’: a human rights analysis of Blessington, Elliott and the life imprisonment of children in New South Wales

In 2010, two Australians, convicted in childhood of rape and murder, lodged a joint submission with the United Nations Human Rights Committee, claiming that successive changes to sentencing legislation in New South Wales breached their human rights by denying them any meaningful prospect of release. In this article, we examine the political, legislative and procedural moves that have resulted in Australian children being sentenced to life without parole or release. We argue that successive legislative changes in various Australian jurisdictions have resulted in a framework for sentencing decisions that is considerably out of step with international legal standards for criminal justice. These increasingly punitive legislative changes exacerbate Australia’s already declining record of cooperation with UN processes, and reveal Australia’s reluctance to respect the legitimacy and authority of international law. Against this troubling context, the views of the Human Rights Committee serve as a much-needed reminder about the importance of a principled approach to child sentencing that forecloses neither the goal of rehabilitation nor the prospect of release and reintegration.

Maximizing desistance: adding therapeutic jurisprudence and human rights to the mix

The law can be a systemically induced decision point for offenders and can act to help or hinder desistance. Desistance can be described as a change process that may be initiated by decisive momentum, supported by intervention, and maintained through re-entry, culminating in a citizen with full rights and responsibilities. Desistance within courts, corrections, and beyond is maximized by applying the law in a therapeutic manner. In common, desistance, therapeutic jurisprudence, and human rights support offender autonomy and well-being. The intersections between the three models have been explored to propose a normative framework that provides principles and offers strategies to address therapeutic legal rules, legal procedures, and the role of psycholegal actors and offenders in initiating, supporting, and maintaining desistance.

Desistance: The “other side” of change and implications for maintenance programs

How offenders cease offending and engage in the desistance process is a key consideration for effective rehabilitation. While attention is increasing on desistance and its utility in the supervision and case management of offenders postrelease, it’s yet to be integral to postrelease programs. This paper considers the implications of the desistance process for psychological postrelease programs, such as community maintenance programs. There will be a brief review of some of the theories of desistance, consideration of the interrelationship between desistance theory and community maintenance programs and discussion about the implications of desistance theory for the delivery of community maintenance programs.

Upholding whose right? Discretionary police powers to punish, collective 'pre-victimisation and the dilution of individual rights

This article uses the example of Victoria’s alcohol-related banning notice provisions to explore the changing conception of balance within criminal justice processes. Despite the formalisation of individual rights within measures such as Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, the discretionary power of the police to issue on-the-spot punishments in response to actual or potential criminal behaviour has increased steadily. A key driver, evident across the parliamentary debates of the banning legislation, is a presumed need to protect the broader community of potential victims. As a result, the individual rights of those accused (but not necessarily convicted) of undesirable behaviours are increasingly subordinated to the pre-emptive protection of the law-abiding majority. This shift embodies a largely unsubstantiated notion of collective pre-victimisation. Significantly, despite the expectations of Victoria’s Charter, measures such as banning notices have been enacted with insufficient evidence of the underlying collective risk, of their likely effectiveness and without meaningful ongoing scrutiny. The motto of Victoria Police – Uphold the Right –appears to belie a growing uncertainty over whose rights should be upheld and how.

The implementation of feminist law reforms: the case of post-provocation sentencing

In 2005 the Australian State of Victoria abolished the controversial partial defence of provocation. Part of the impetus for the reforms was to challenge provocation’s victim-blaming narratives and the defence’s tendency to excuse men’s violence against intimate partners. However, concerns were also expressed that these narratives and excuses would simply reappear at the sentencing stage when men who had killed intimate partners were convicted of murder or manslaughter. This paper analyses post-provocation sentencing judgments, reviewing cases over the 10 year period since the reforms in order to determine whether these concerns have been borne out. The analysis suggests that at the level of sentencing outcomes they have not, although at the level of discourse the picture is more mixed. While sentencing narratives continue to reproduce the language of provocation, at the same time, post-provocation sentencing appears to provide opportunities for feminist judging – picking up on the spirit of the reforms – which have been taken up by some judges more than others.