Substance use, offending, and participation in alcohol and drug treatment programmes: a comparison of prisoners with and without Intellectual disabilities

BACKGROUND: Many offenders with intellectual disabilities have substance use issues. Offending behaviour may be associated with substance use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prisoners with and without intellectual disabilities were compared in terms of their substance use prior to imprisonment, the influence of substance use on offending, and their participation in alcohol and drug treatment programmes. RESULTS: Substance use was similar in prisoners with and without intellectual disabilities in the year prior to their current prison terms. Prisoners with intellectual disabilities were much less likely to report that substance use was an antecedent to the offences leading to their imprisonment. The completion rate of alcohol and drug treatment programmes was much lower for those with intellectual disabilities. CONCLUSIONS: Substance use may be as common in prisoners with intellectual disabilities as those without this condition. Services may need to reflect on whether their treatment programmes are meeting the needs of all prisoners.

Jail up; crime down does not justify Australia becoming an incarceration nation

The imprisonment rate in Australia is at unprecedented high levels, both interms of actual prisoner numbers and the rate at which it is increasing. Forthe first time in recorded history the incarceration rate in Australia has morethan doubled in less than 25 years. Prison is the harshest form ofpunishment in our system of justice and imposes considerable hardship onoffenders. It also comes at a considerable financial cost to the community.Accordingly, the surge in prisoner numbers is a significant macro social,economic and legal development. The increase did not occur pursuant to anoverarching strategic plan and is an area that is under-researched. Theprison population increase has arisen as a result of a ‘tough on crime’approach that continues without any sign of abatement. The use ofimprisonment should only be increased if there is a demonstrable benefit tothe community. This article examines whether there is a sound rationalebehind the rising trend in prison numbers. The increasing incarceration ratehas coincided with a significant reduction in the crime rate. A causalconnection between the two events (increased prisoner numbers andreduced crime) could constitute a powerful argument in favour of the surgein prison numbers. However, an examination of the empirical data inAustralia fails to demonstrate even a tenable link between these events. Wealso conclude that at the theoretical level there is no rationale for theincreased use of imprisonment. If the imprisonment rate continues to rise,there is a risk of a prison and financial crisis similar to that currently beingexperienced in the United States, which has resulted in an extremecounter-reaction in the form of a retrospective reduction of some prison terms.

Skilling’s martyrdom: The case for criminalization without incarceration

This paper restricts itself to crimes involving corporate fiduciaries taking bad decisions at the expense of shareholders (corporate governance offenses). The arguments do not apply to fraud as moral wrongfulness exists in that case. To the extent that the actions covered by this paper are blameworthy, I argue that this determination must be disentangled from punishment. Disentanglement of blame from deserts suggests a via-media between criminalization and decriminalization - criminalization without incarceration. Accordingly, the legal process stops at the determination of guilt. The paper advances the criminalization debate because it does not get bogged down in the irreconcilable quarrel about whether corporate governance misbehavior ought to be criminalized for deterrence, retribution, or rehabilitation reasons, and whether it achieves any of these purposes. For these offenses, I argue that whichever theoretical justification underpins the decision to criminalize, imprisonment must not follow conviction. The conviction, despite the lack of incarceration, and the consequential sanctions likely to be imposed on the wrongdoer are sufficient to satisfy the three main justifications for criminalization. In appropriate cases, disgorgement of the offender’s gains will aid in the achievement of these objectives. The model proposed by this paper would yield significant savings by reducing prison costs. It would also allow the state to take advantage of the disproportionate cost/burden of conviction on corporate governance offenders. Owing to the offenders’ high earning potential, deterrence can be achieved at lower cost by conviction alone because the cost of incarceration does not have to be borne by the state whereas the destruction of capacity to generate similar (or indeed, any) income has to be suffered by the offender even without going to jail. If the cost of incarceration is the same for offenders with different earning capacities, imprisoning those with very high earning capacities is a waste of social capital if the objectives sought to be achieved by incarceration can be achieved through other means. Further, the cost of a conviction can be predicted with sufficient certainty in the case of white-collar criminals by looking at their earnings history, and in many cases this can be a significant sum. Unlike the common criminal who may not have a similarly predictable earning capacity and therefore suffer the same extent of monetary loss from a conviction, this loss ought to serve the deterrence function without the need for the state to spend money imprisoning the offender. In addition to loss of earning capacity, clawing back ill-gotten gains significantly adds to disutility. The paper is set out as follows: Part II briefly outlines the scope of the wrongs tackled as stemming from the principal-agent relationship in corporate law, and the inability of the law to overcome effectively problems resulting from the collectivization of the principal in that relationship. In Part III, I argue that conviction without imprisonment is a second-best alternative to decriminalization in cases where the conduct is blameworthy, and results in non-consensual harm. Part IV demonstrates the disutility caused by conviction alone to show that the objectives of criminalization can be satisfied without the need for imprisonment. Part V asserts that consequential sanctions like shaming add to the disutility of conviction. Part VI ties the thesis to Skilling’s conviction for bad business judgment devoid of moral wrongfulness to illustrate the problems with conflating blame and punishment. Part VII concludes.

Understanding the needs of female prisoners in South Australia

Women represent the fastest growing section of the prison population, not only in South Australia but across the Western world. And yet despite notable differences between the genders in the types of offence that result in imprisonment and the unique pathways into criminal behaviour, service responses have, to date, primarily been informed by knowledge about male prisoners. The aim of this report is to understand more about the specific needs of female prisoners in South Australia in a way that can inform their effective management and successful rehabilitation. It does this in three ways: Firstly, by reviewing the published literature and documenting what is known about the needs of female offenders, both in Australia and internationally; secondly, through a file review of all prisoners held in the Adelaide Women’s Prison; and finally, through a survey of a sample of prisoners to determine self-identified areas of need as well as satisfaction with the services that are currently provided. This information is then collated to identify a number of directions for the development of high quality and gender-responsive programs and services in the South Australian correctional system

Improving risk assessment in schizophrenia: epidemiological investigation of criminal history factors

Background : Violence risk assessment in schizophrenia relies heavily on criminal history factors.

Aims : To investigate which criminal history factors are most strongly associated with violent crime in schizophrenia.

Method : A total of 13 806 individuals (8891 men and 4915 women) with two or more hospital admissions for schizophrenia were followed up for violent convictions. Multivariate hazard ratios for 15 criminal history factors included in different risk assessment tools were calculated. The incremental predictive validity of these factors was estimated using tests of discrimination, calibration and reclassification.

Results : Over a mean follow-up of 12.0 years, 17.3% of men (n = 1535) and 5.7% of women (n = 281) were convicted of a violent offence. Criminal history factors most strongly associated with subsequent violence for both men and women were a previous conviction for a violent offence; for assault, illegal threats and/or intimidation; and imprisonment. However, only a previous conviction for a violent offence was associated with incremental predictive validity in both genders following adjustment for young age and comorbid substance use disorder.

Conclusions : Clinical and actuarial approaches to assess violence risk can be improved if included risk factors are tested using multiple measures of performance.

Addressing the curious black spot that is the separation between the principle of legality and sentencing

The principle of legality has evolved into a clear and entrenchedjurisprudential mechanism for protecting common law rights and freedoms. It operates as a shield to preserve the scope of application of fundamental rights and fre edoms. In recent years it has been increasingly applied by the courts to limit the scope of legislative provisions which potentially impinge on human rights and fundamental freedoms. Yet there is one domain where the principle of legality is conspicuously absent: sentencing. Ostensibly, this is paradoxical. Sentencing is the realm where the legalsystem operates in its most coercive manner against individuals. In thisarticle, we argue that logically the principle of legality has an importantrole in the sentencing system given the incursions by criminal sanctionsinto a number of basic rights, including the right to liberty, the freedom ofassociation and the deprivation of property. By way of illustration, we setout how the principle of legality should apply to the interpretation of keystatutory provisions. To this end, we argue that the objectives of generaldeterrence and specifi c deterrence should have less impact in sentencing. It is also suggested that judges should be more reluctant to send offenders with dependants to terms of imprisonment. Injecting the principle of legality into sentencing law and practice would result in the reduction in severity of a large number of sanctions, thereby reducing the frequency and extent to which the fundamental rights of offenders are violated. The methodology set out in this article can be applied to alter the operation of a number of legislative sentencing objectives and rules.

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.

'A gender for change'

Women’s imprisonment campaigns gathered momentum in Victoria, Australia from the late 1970s onwards. Advocates and activists, operating from feminist and often prison abolition principles, used direct action, public education, lobbying and legal tools to create pressure for change in the women’s prison system. Campaigns focused on challenging various harmful and dangerous practices and conditions affecting women in prison, including forced sterilization and the use of prescription drugs for control; lack of access to children and family; excessive strip-searching; the punitive transfer of women to men’s high-security prisons and more (Carnaby, 1998; Cerveri et al., 2005; Cotter, 2008; George, 1993, 1995; Hampton, 1993; Hancock, 1982; Hannon, 2006). Whilst some of these practices have ceased over the past few decades, many of the issues persist, albeit in different forms, and new problems have emerged for anti-prison activists. This paper offers a reflection on some of the complexities present in anti-prison activism focused on ameliorating some of the immediate harms imprisoned women face and the necessary negotiations with the penal state.

Mol, science, religion and narrative identity

Significantly influencing the sociological study of religion, Hans Mol developed ideas of identity which remain thought-provoking for analyses of how religion operates within contemporary societies. Sacred Selves, Sacred Settings brings current social-religious topics into sharp focus: international scholars analyse, challenge, and apply Mol’s theoretical assertions. This book introduces the unique story of Hans Mol, who survived Nazi imprisonment and proceeded to brush shoulders with formidable intellectuals of the twentieth century, such as Robert Merton, Talcott Parsons, and Reinhold Niebuhr. Offering a fresh perspective on popular subjects such as secularization, pluralism, and the place of religion in the public sphere, this book sets case studies within an intellectual biography which describes Mol’s key influences and reveals the continuing import of Hans Mol’s work applied to recent data and within a contemporary context.

A rational (unapologetically pragmatic) approach to dealing with the irrational - the setencing of offenders with mental disorders

People with mental impairment are so heavily over-represented in prisons and jails that jails have been labeled “warehouses for the mentally ill.” In many parts of the United States, there are more mentally impaired offenders in prisons than in hospitals for the mentally unwell. Offenders laboring with impaired mental functioning are often regarded as being less morally culpable for their crimes and hence less deserving of punishment. However, the reduced mental functioning of offenders does not diminish the harm caused to victims. People are no less dead if mentally unwell offenders kill them rather than offenders who are mentally sound. This tension has proven an intractable problem for sentencing law and practice. There are no clear, fair, and effective principles or processes for accommodating impaired mental functioning in the sentencing inquiry. It is an under-researched area of the law. In this Article, I explore this tension. Key to ascertaining the proper manner in which to incorporate mental illness into the sentencing system is clarity regarding the importance of consequences to the offender, as opposed to moral culpability. I analyze current approaches to sentencing offenders with mental health problems in both the United States and Australia. Despite the vastly different sentencing regimes in these countries, both systems are deficient in dealing with mentally ill offenders, but for different reasons. I propose a solution to administering sentences to offenders with a mental disorder that is equally applicable to both sentencing systems. Mental impairment should mitigate penalty. However, in determining the extent and circumstances in which it should do so, it is cardinal not to lose sight of the fact that those who are sentenced for a crime are not insane, and they were aware that their acts were wrong--otherwise they would not have been found guilty in the first instance. I argue that a standard ten percent sentencing discount should be accorded to offenders who were mentally disordered at the time of sentencing. There should be an even more substantial discount when it is likely that offenders will find the sanction--in particular imprisonment--more burdensome due to their mental state. This difference would ensure some recognition of the reduced blameworthiness of mentally impaired offenders and the extra hardship that some forms of punishment inflict on mentally *2 ill offenders, while not compromising the important objectives of proportionality and community protection. The only situations when mental disorder should not mitigate penalty are when the offender is a recidivist, serious sexual or violent offender. In these circumstances, the interests of the community are the paramount consideration. The analysis in this paper applies most directly when a term of imprisonment is imposed. However, the reasoning also extends to the threshold decision of whether or not a term of imprisonment should be imposed in the first place.