Home truths about home detention

The Victorian Parliament has recently introduced a Bill which implements home detention as a sentencing option. Home detention is an intuitively appealing reform. The logic behind the proposal seems obvious. Prisons are expensive to run. There are too many offenders in prison. So let's take the cost out of prison by turning the homes of offenders into prisons: classic, user-pays, cost-shifting economics. The level of superficial appeal of the argument in favour of home detention is matched only by the depth of the fallacies underpinning some of the fundamental premises. The most basic of which is the assumption that offenders who are candidates for the new sanction should be in detention (of any kind) in the first place. Further, the narrow objective of reducing imprisonment is misguided. It should not be elevated to a cardinal sentencing objective?otherwise total success could be achieved by simply opening the prison gates. There are also other concerns about the appropriateness of home detention. The degree of pain it inflicts in many cases is questionable and it may also violate the principle that punishment should not be inflicted on the innocent. After examining the arguments for and against home detention, this article suggests the approach that should be adopted to achieve enlightened and meaningful sentencing reform.

Commonwealth legislative power and "non punitive" detention: a constitutional roadmap

In 2004 The High Court handed down a number of decisions concerning detention imposed for purposes allegedly unrelated to punishment. This paper outlines the way the Federal Constitution restricts (and also facilitates) the imposition of "non punitive detention" by our governments. Such laws (as passed by the Federal Legislature) are constitutionally valid provided they can be characterised as falling within a legislative head of power under  section 51 off he Constitution. The power to detain for non punitive purposes can be reposed by the Legislature in the either the Executive or Judicial arms of government. Detention by the Executive is non punitive (and therefore does not offend the separation of powers) even though it involves a deprivation of liberty, provided it is imposed for “legitimate non punitive purposes”.  Legitimacy is in turn determined by reference to the section 51 heads of power. Detention for non punitive purposes by the judicial arm of government is constitutionally valid provided that (i) a “judicial process ” is adopted and (ii) (arguably) there is some link (albeit tenuous) with a previous finding of criminal guilt. The continuing existence of the “constitutional immunity ”from being detained by other than judicial order identified by the High Court in its 1992 decision in Lim v Minister for Immigration is called into question.

Preventative detention and the right of personal liberty and security under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966

Preventive detention enables a person to be deprived of liberty, by executive determination, for the purposes of safeguarding national security or public order without that person being charged or brought to trial. This paper examines Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 to assess whether preventive detention is prohibited by the phrase 'arbitrary arrest and detention '. To analyse this Article, this paper uses a textual and structural analysis of the Article, as well as reference to the travaux preparatoires and case law of the Human Rights Committee. This paper argues that preventive detention is not explicitly prohibited by Article 9(1) ofthe International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966. If preventive detention is 'arbitrary', within the wide interpretation of that term as argued in this paper, it will be a permissible deprivation of personal liberty under Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. Preventive detention will, however, always be considered 'arbitrary' if sajeguards for those arrested and detained are not complied with, in particular the right to judicial review of the lawfulness of detention.

Preventive detention and the right to personal liberty and security under Article 5 ECHR

'Preventive detention' refers to detention by executive order as a  precautionary measure based on predicted criminal conduct. Detention is without criminal charge or trial as detention is based on the prediction of a future offence. This paper examines Article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ('ECHR'), in particular Article 5(1)(c) and Article 5(3). To explore this issue, this paper conducts a textual analysis of Article 5 and examines both the travaux preacuteparatoires of the ECHR, as well as jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. This article argues that preventive detention is specifically provided for under the second ground of detention in Article 5(1)(c). A person in preventive detention, however, must be brought promptly before judicial authority under Article 5(3).

A longitudinal study of body change strategies of fitness center attendees

This study evaluated predictors of strategies to change weight and muscles among men and women who attend fitness centers. A questionnaire was completed by 107 men (mean age = 39.17, SD = 13.14), and 151 women (mean age = 35.31, SD = 11.38) who regularly attended fitness centers at two points in time, one year apart. The only unique predictor of body change strategies over time for men was body dissatisfaction predicting drive for thinness; for women, body dissatisfaction predicted strategies to lose weight, drive for thinness, use of food supplements to lose weight and levels of bulimia. Media messages also predicted drive for thinness and bulimia among women. These findings would suggest that attendance body dissatisfaction is an important factor predicting other normative and health risk behaviors among fitness center attendees, particularly women at a fitness center over a 12 month period was not generally associated with adverse health risk behaviors.

Preventative detention in Australian law : issues of interpretation

This article examines the statutory interpretation of terms in Div 105 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) . This division is the regime for preventative detention orders (PDOs), an Executive order permitting a person to be taken into custody and deprived of his/her personal liberty for the purpose of either preventing an imminent terrorist act or preserving evidence of a past terrorist act. The organisation of this article corresponds with three key features of a PDO from this description: "detention"; "Executive"; and "preventative purpose". To consider the interpretation of Div 105 , this article relies on statutory principles of interpretation, and most notably, the recent authority of Thomas v Mowbray (2007) 81 ALJR 1414 [PDF] ; [2007] HCA 33.

Community center-based resistance training for the maintenance of glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE--The purpose of this study Was to determine whether beneficial effects on glycemic control of an initial laboratory-supervised resistance training program could be sustained through a community center-based maintenance program.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS--We studied 57 overweight (BMI [greater than or equal to] 27 kg/[m.sup.2]) sedentary men and women aged 40-80 years with established (>6 months) type 2 diabetes. Initially, all participants attended a twice-weekly 2-month supervised resistance training program conducted in the exercise laboratory. Thereafter, participants undertook a resistance training maintenance program (2 times/week) for 12 months and were randomly assigned to carry this out either in a community fitness and recreation center (center) or in their domestic environment (home). Glycemic control ([HbA.sub.1c] [A1C]) was assessed at 0, 2, and 14 months.

RESULTS--Pooling data from the two groups for the 2-month supervised resistance training program showed that compared with baseline, mean A1C fell by -0.4% [95% CI -0.6 to -0.2]. Within-group comparisons showed that A1C remained lower than baseline values at 14 months in the center group (-0.4% [-0.7 to -0.03]) but not in the home group (-0.1% [-0.4 to 0.3]). However, no between-group differences were observed at each time point. Changes in A1C during the maintenance period were positively associated with exercise adherence in the center group only.

CONCLUSIONS--Center-based but not home-based resistance training was associated with the maintenance of modestly improved glycemic control from baseline, which was proportional to program adherence. Our findings emphasize the need to develop and test behavioral methods to promote healthy lifestyles including increased physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes.

The compliance of Australian preventative detention law with article 9(1) ICCPR

This thesis found that a provision of Australia's counter-terrorism policy, preventative detention, does not comply with a major international treaty, the ICCPR. This thesis provides an alternative model by which the Australian Government could achieve the legitimate purposes of preventative detention within the existing constraints of the Australian criminal law.

Immigration detention in Australia

This thesis explains why immigration detention persists as part of Australia's immigration policy. It argues that this form of incarceration has a long history in Australia, and that it fulfils specific social and political functions. The thesis also demonstrates that immigration detention is punitive and therefore breaches Australia's constitution.