‘Out of the Penal System and into the Hospital Regime?’ Judicial Challenges in Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders and the Likely Impact of the 2020 Sentencing Council Guideline

Owen P O’Sullivan, Nigel Eastman
{"title":"‘Out of the Penal System and into the Hospital Regime?’ Judicial Challenges in Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders and the Likely Impact of the 2020 Sentencing Council Guideline","authors":"Owen P O’Sullivan, Nigel Eastman","doi":"10.1177/00220183231216012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Mentally disordered offenders may be vulnerable yet also pose particular risk to the public. Achieving appropriate sentencing poses complex challenges for judges in properly determining culpability and punishment, protecting the public, and meeting any identified treatment needs of the defendant. With respect to all three elements there is likely to be necessary reliance upon psychiatric expertise. Despite much previous statutory guidance, there has not – until very recently – been available specific sentencing guidelines from the Sentencing Council (SC) to assist the judiciary in what is a profoundly difficult exercise. This review describes and considers the guidance available to the judiciary in the Crown Courts of England and Wales regarding the various disposal options – including that which ‘hybridises’ penal and treatment disposal – in addition to facilitating and properly limiting the role of expert evidence. A specific focus is on contextualising, and commenting upon, the SC's recently published Guidance, Sentencing Offenders with Mental Disorders, Developmental Disorders or Neurological Impairments, which seeks to consolidate information, improve knowledge, reduce confusion, and assist the courts towards properly and consistently addressing the relevance of mental disorder to sentencing. In doing so, in the authors’ view, it privileges punishment over public safety, leaving judges to address public safety largely without the benefit of the explicit ‘routes to sentencing’ approach of the Guidance.","PeriodicalId":501562,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Criminal Law","volume":"56 1.2","pages":"417 - 427"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Criminal Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220183231216012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Mentally disordered offenders may be vulnerable yet also pose particular risk to the public. Achieving appropriate sentencing poses complex challenges for judges in properly determining culpability and punishment, protecting the public, and meeting any identified treatment needs of the defendant. With respect to all three elements there is likely to be necessary reliance upon psychiatric expertise. Despite much previous statutory guidance, there has not – until very recently – been available specific sentencing guidelines from the Sentencing Council (SC) to assist the judiciary in what is a profoundly difficult exercise. This review describes and considers the guidance available to the judiciary in the Crown Courts of England and Wales regarding the various disposal options – including that which ‘hybridises’ penal and treatment disposal – in addition to facilitating and properly limiting the role of expert evidence. A specific focus is on contextualising, and commenting upon, the SC's recently published Guidance, Sentencing Offenders with Mental Disorders, Developmental Disorders or Neurological Impairments, which seeks to consolidate information, improve knowledge, reduce confusion, and assist the courts towards properly and consistently addressing the relevance of mental disorder to sentencing. In doing so, in the authors’ view, it privileges punishment over public safety, leaving judges to address public safety largely without the benefit of the explicit ‘routes to sentencing’ approach of the Guidance.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
走出刑罚系统,进入医院制度?精神失常罪犯量刑中的司法挑战及 2020 年量刑委员会指南的可能影响
精神失常的罪犯可能很脆弱,但也可能对公众构成特殊风险。要实现适当的量刑,对法官来说是一项复杂的挑战,既要适当地确定罪责和惩罚,保护公众,又要满足被告任何已确定的治疗需求。在所有这三个要素方面,都可能需要依赖精神病学的专业知识。尽管以前有很多法定指南,但直到最近,量刑委员会(SC)才提供了具体的量刑指南来协助司法机构完成这项难度极大的工作。除了促进和适当限制专家证据的作用外,本审查报告还描述和考虑了英格兰和威尔士刑事法院司法机构在各种处置方案方面可获得的指导--包括 "混合 "刑罚和治疗处置方案。该指南旨在整合信息、增进知识、减少混淆,并协助法院正确、一致地处理精神障碍与量刑的相关性。作者认为,在这样做的过程中,它将惩罚置于公共安全之上,使得法官在处理公共安全问题时,在很大程度上无法受益于《指南》中明确的 "量刑途径 "方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mental Health and Yoga in Prisons Testing the Effects of Workplace Variables on the Job Burnout Among Prison Officers in India: An Application of the Job Demands–Resources Model Non-Fatal Strangulation: An Empirical Review of the New Offence in England and Wales Introduction to the Special Issue on Mental Health in Prisons Finding a Compromise: A Criminal Law Defence for Regulating Medical Assistance in Dying
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1