Back to basics : empirical support for the importance of release planning in reducing sex offender recidivism

This article reports findings from a series of empirical studies investigating whether poor release planning might contribute to sex offender recidivism. A coding protocol was developed to measure the comprehensiveness of release planning which included items relating to accommodation, employment, pro-social support, community based treatment, and the Good Lives Model (T. Ward & C.A. Stewart, 2003) secondary goods. The protocol was retrospectively applied to groups of recidivist and non recidivist child molesters, matched on static risk level and time since release. As predicted, overall release planning was significantly poorer for recidivists compared to non recidivists. The accommodation, employment, and social support items combined to best predict recidivism, with predictive accuracy comparable to that obtained using static risk models. Results highlighted the importance of release planning in efforts to reduce sex offender recidivism. Implications for policy makers and community members are briefly discussed.

Assessment of community reintegration planning for sex offenders

Poor planning for reintegrating child molesters from prison to the community is a likely risk factor for sexual recidivism. The quality of reintegration planning was retrospectively measured for groups of recidivist (n = 30) and nonrecidivist (n = 30) child molesters who were individually matched on static risk level and time since release. Recidivists had significantly poorer reintegration planning scores than nonrecidivists, consistent with a previous study by the authors. Data from both studies were combined (total N = 141), and survival analyses showed that poor reintegration planning predicted an increased rate of recidivism. Accommodation, employment, and social support planning combined to predict recidivism, with predictive validity comparable to static risk models (area under the curve = .71). Summing these items yielded a scale of reintegration planning quality that differentiated well between recidivists and nonrecidivists and may have practical utility for risk assessment as an adjunct to static models.

The association between alcohol interventions and Dui incidents in Geelong, Victoria

Introduction and aims : Driving under the influence of alcohol is a major public health problem, every year affecting the lives of billions around the world - and not least in Australia. Since 2001, several Traffic Accident Commission (TAC), police, and community interventions have been implemented in Geelong, Australia to curb drink driving. The current paper aims to assess the impact of 13 alcohol interventions on drink-driving rates in the Geelong region of Australia. The interventions comprised seven TAC media campaigns, three Victoria Police operations, two community interventions targeting licensed premises, and the alcohol interlock program.

Method : This study examined two types of Victoria Police frequency data: Driving under the influence (DUI) offences, and roadside preliminary breath testing (PBT) rates. Multiple regressions were carried out to determine if any of the interventions were significantly associated with frequency fluctuations in the data.

Results : Of the 13 alcohol interventions examined, three TAC campaigns and one Victoria Police operation precipitated significant decreases in drink-driving rates, while another three TAC campaigns were associated with significant increases in drink-driving rates. Over one in five (22.5%) had recorded prior DUI offences.

Conclusions : The most promising approach to curbing DUI-rates in Geelong, appear to be through informative media campaigns which show people specific settings where they might become mildly intoxicated without being aware of it, such as TAC’s ‘Education 1’ campaign. However, there remains a worrying level of recidivist drink drivers in Geelong suggesting the need for tailored approaches.

Effectiveness of interventions for convicted DUI offenders in reducing recidivism: a systematic review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature

Abstract Background: Driving under the influence (DUI) is a major cause of death and disability. Although a broad array of programs designed to curb DUI incidents are currently offered to both first-time and recidivist DUI offenders, existing evaluations of the effectiveness of these programs have reported mixed results. Objective: To synthesize the results of DUI program evaluations and determine the strength of the available evidence for reducing recidivism for different types of programs. Methods: A systematic review of all EBSCO databases, EMBASE, PubMed, ProQuest, Sociological Abstracts and TRIS was conducted to identify evaluations of treatments/interventions to prevent DUI offenses. Additional articles were identified from reference lists of relevant articles. Results: A total of 42 relevant studies were identified by the search strategy. Of these, 33 utilized non-experimental evaluation designs or reported insufficient data to allow effect sizes to be calculated, making meta-analysis unfeasible. Evaluations of several different program types reported evidence of some level of effectiveness. Conclusion: Because of the general lack of high quality evidence assessing the effectiveness of DUI prevention programs, it is not possible to make conclusive statements about the types of programs that are likely to be most effective. Nonetheless, there was some evidence to support the effectiveness of programs that utilize intensive supervision and education. There is a need for future evaluations to adopt more scientifically rigorous research designs to establish the effects of these programs.

First-time offender, productive offender, offender with dependents: why the profile of offenders (sometimes) matters in sentencing

Should a single mother of four young children who commits theft be sentenced to a lesser sanction than a woman who commits the same crime but has no dependents? Should a billionaire philanthropist be sentenced to a lesser penalty than the average citizen for assaulting a random bystander? Should a first-time thief receive a lighter sanction than a career thief for the same theft? The relevance of an offender’s profile to sentencing is unclear and is one of the most under-researched and least coherent areas of sentencing law. Intuitively, there is some appeal in treating offenders without a criminal record, those who have made a positive contribution to society, or who have dependents more leniently than other offenders. However, to allow these considerations to mitigate penalty potentially licenses offenders to commit crime and decouples the sanction from the severity of the offense, thereby undermining the proportionality principle. This article analyzes the relevance that an offender’s profile should have in sentencing. We conclude that a lack of prior convictions should generally reduce penalty because the empirical data shows that, in relation to most offenses, first-time offenders are less likely to reoffend than recidivist offenders. The situation is more complex in relation to offenders who have made worthy social contributions. They should not be given sentencing credit for past achievements given that past good acts have no relevance to the proper objectives of sentencing and it is normally not tenable, even in a crude sense, to make an informed assessment of an individual’s overall societal contribution. However, offenders should be accorded a sentencing reduction if they have financial or physical dependents and if imprisoning them is likely to cause harm to their dependents. Conferring asentencing discount to first-time offenders and those withdependents does not license them to commit crime or unjustifiablyencroach on the proportionality principle. Rather, it recognizes thedifferent layers of the legal system and the reality that sentencinglaw should not reflexively overwhelm broader maxims of justice,including the principle that innocent people should not suffer. Thisarticle argues that fundamental legislative reform is necessary toproperly reflect the role that the profile of offenders should have inthe sentencing regime.

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.