Pub Date : 2022-05-09DOI: 10.1177/02645505221095069
Hannah Wilkinson
This article offers an original insight into the experiences of former military personnel navigating life after criminalisation in a time of austerity. Drawing on case studies of in-depth narrative and visual interview data with two ‘veteran offenders’, the article draws attention to a complex ‘dance of disclosure’ around military service and criminal records. The article demonstrates how the complexity of the pains of criminalisation can make (re-)finding a sense of purpose and self-worth difficult for former military personnel who must continually decide whether to disclose or obscure their military past, depending on the criminal punishment context. This critical analysis makes visible a potential continuum of state harm for those criminalised and managed as ‘veteran offenders’.
{"title":"Hero to zero? Navigating and negotiating the harms of criminalisation as a ‘veteran offender’","authors":"Hannah Wilkinson","doi":"10.1177/02645505221095069","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02645505221095069","url":null,"abstract":"This article offers an original insight into the experiences of former military personnel navigating life after criminalisation in a time of austerity. Drawing on case studies of in-depth narrative and visual interview data with two ‘veteran offenders’, the article draws attention to a complex ‘dance of disclosure’ around military service and criminal records. The article demonstrates how the complexity of the pains of criminalisation can make (re-)finding a sense of purpose and self-worth difficult for former military personnel who must continually decide whether to disclose or obscure their military past, depending on the criminal punishment context. This critical analysis makes visible a potential continuum of state harm for those criminalised and managed as ‘veteran offenders’.","PeriodicalId":45814,"journal":{"name":"PROBATION JOURNAL","volume":"69 1","pages":"318 - 336"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65090578","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-02DOI: 10.1177/02645505221097517
N. Carr
This issue of the journal includes an important piece by Mariam Rashid, a practitioner working in England. Mariam’s practice note reflects on what she describes as ‘complex complicity’ as a woman of colour working in a criminal justice system that disproportionately processes people from racial and ethnic minorities. Evidence of this disproportionality has been set out in a range of research and reports over many years, including most prominently in the Lammy Report published in 2017 which documented differential treatment and outcomes for Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic individuals at all stages of the criminal justice system (Lammy, 2017). The Lammy Report outlined that people from Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic backgrounds are disproportionately targeted by police Stop and Search practices and are over-represented at all stages of the system and especially in the youth justice system and prison population. The data cited in the Lammy Report is from 2015/16, but a look at the most recent statistics shows that depressingly the dial has not shifted on this issue, despite a series of recommendations aimed at addressing the causes of disproportionality. In 2020 Black people comprised 3% of the population in England and Wales, but constituted 18% of all Stop and Searches, and 13% of the prison population (Ministry of Justice, 2021). In the interim of course, we have also seen the publication of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities Report (2021), which was widely criticized from a range of quarters for diluting the concept of ‘institutional racism’ and downplaying the structural factors impacting on people from racial and ethnic minorities living in the United Kingdom (Runnymede Trust, 2021;Walker and Parveen, 2021). This has raised questions about this government’s commitment to meaningfully addressing the impacts of racial and ethnic disparities in all areas of society, including in the criminal justice system. In 2021 we also saw the publication of the Probation Inspectorate’s Thematic Review of Race Equality in probation (HMIP, 2021). Importantly this review looked at the experiences of both probation service users and staff. Several issues of concern are documented including gaps in service provision and a decline in probation services’ focus on racial equality following the implementation of Transforming Rehabilitation reforms. The thematic review also noted black, Asian and minority ethnic staff concerns’ regarding transparency of recruitment and selection practices and a lack of confidence in raising issues of racial discrimination. Editorial The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
这期杂志包括玛丽亚姆·拉希德(Mariam Rashid)的一篇重要文章，她是一位在英国工作的从业者。玛丽安的练习笔记反映了她所描述的“复杂的共谋”，作为一名有色人种女性，她在刑事司法系统中工作，该系统不成比例地处理来自种族和少数民族的人。多年来，一系列研究和报告都提出了这种不均衡的证据，其中最突出的是2017年发表的拉米报告(Lammy Report)，该报告记录了黑人、亚洲人和少数民族在刑事司法系统各个阶段的差别待遇和结果(Lammy, 2017)。拉米报告概述了黑人、亚裔和少数族裔背景的人不成比例地成为警察拦截和搜查的目标，并且在系统的各个阶段，特别是在青少年司法系统和监狱人口中都有过多的代表。拉米报告中引用的数据来自2015/16年，但看看最近的统计数据，令人沮丧的是，尽管有一系列旨在解决性别比例失调原因的建议，但在这个问题上的情况并没有改变。2020年，黑人占英格兰和威尔士人口的3%，但占所有拦截和搜查的18%，占监狱人口的13%(司法部，2021年)。当然，在此期间，我们也看到了《种族和民族差异委员会报告》(2021)的出版，该报告因淡化“制度性种族主义”的概念和淡化影响英国少数种族和少数民族的结构性因素而受到广泛批评(Runnymede Trust, 2021;Walker and Parveen, 2021)。这引发了人们对本届政府在社会各个领域(包括刑事司法系统)有意义地解决种族和民族差异影响的承诺的质疑。2021年，我们还看到了缓刑监察局关于缓刑中种族平等的专题审查(HMIP, 2021)的出版。重要的是，这项审查调查了缓刑服务使用者和工作人员的经历。记录了几个令人关切的问题，包括服务提供方面的差距，以及在实施改造康复改革后，缓刑服务对种族平等的关注有所下降。专题审查还注意到黑人、亚洲人和少数族裔工作人员对征聘和选择做法的透明度以及对提出种族歧视问题缺乏信心的关切。社论《社区与刑事司法杂志》
{"title":"Race equality and probation – a view from the frontline","authors":"N. Carr","doi":"10.1177/02645505221097517","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02645505221097517","url":null,"abstract":"This issue of the journal includes an important piece by Mariam Rashid, a practitioner working in England. Mariam’s practice note reflects on what she describes as ‘complex complicity’ as a woman of colour working in a criminal justice system that disproportionately processes people from racial and ethnic minorities. Evidence of this disproportionality has been set out in a range of research and reports over many years, including most prominently in the Lammy Report published in 2017 which documented differential treatment and outcomes for Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic individuals at all stages of the criminal justice system (Lammy, 2017). The Lammy Report outlined that people from Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic backgrounds are disproportionately targeted by police Stop and Search practices and are over-represented at all stages of the system and especially in the youth justice system and prison population. The data cited in the Lammy Report is from 2015/16, but a look at the most recent statistics shows that depressingly the dial has not shifted on this issue, despite a series of recommendations aimed at addressing the causes of disproportionality. In 2020 Black people comprised 3% of the population in England and Wales, but constituted 18% of all Stop and Searches, and 13% of the prison population (Ministry of Justice, 2021). In the interim of course, we have also seen the publication of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities Report (2021), which was widely criticized from a range of quarters for diluting the concept of ‘institutional racism’ and downplaying the structural factors impacting on people from racial and ethnic minorities living in the United Kingdom (Runnymede Trust, 2021;Walker and Parveen, 2021). This has raised questions about this government’s commitment to meaningfully addressing the impacts of racial and ethnic disparities in all areas of society, including in the criminal justice system. In 2021 we also saw the publication of the Probation Inspectorate’s Thematic Review of Race Equality in probation (HMIP, 2021). Importantly this review looked at the experiences of both probation service users and staff. Several issues of concern are documented including gaps in service provision and a decline in probation services’ focus on racial equality following the implementation of Transforming Rehabilitation reforms. The thematic review also noted black, Asian and minority ethnic staff concerns’ regarding transparency of recruitment and selection practices and a lack of confidence in raising issues of racial discrimination. Editorial The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice","PeriodicalId":45814,"journal":{"name":"PROBATION JOURNAL","volume":"69 1","pages":"135 - 137"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46355157","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-18DOI: 10.1177/02645505221095068
Lauren Bradford-Clarke, Rhiannon Davies, Andrew Henley
This article critically examines the restrictions on access to statutory compensation in Great Britain for victims of serious crime with criminal records. Drawing on original analysis of Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority transparency data it reveals the scale of the denial of victimisation as a so-called ‘collateral consequence of a criminal record’. The policy is then critiqued on the basis that it reproduces the problematic social construction of the ‘ideal victim’, delineates people with criminal records as subaltern citizens and gives rise to harmful secondary victimisation of applicants whose criminal records are often unrelated to their victimisation event.
{"title":"When ‘ideal victim’ meets ‘criminalised other’: Criminal records and the denial of victimisation","authors":"Lauren Bradford-Clarke, Rhiannon Davies, Andrew Henley","doi":"10.1177/02645505221095068","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02645505221095068","url":null,"abstract":"This article critically examines the restrictions on access to statutory compensation in Great Britain for victims of serious crime with criminal records. Drawing on original analysis of Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority transparency data it reveals the scale of the denial of victimisation as a so-called ‘collateral consequence of a criminal record’. The policy is then critiqued on the basis that it reproduces the problematic social construction of the ‘ideal victim’, delineates people with criminal records as subaltern citizens and gives rise to harmful secondary victimisation of applicants whose criminal records are often unrelated to their victimisation event.","PeriodicalId":45814,"journal":{"name":"PROBATION JOURNAL","volume":"69 1","pages":"353 - 372"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46328511","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-18DOI: 10.1177/02645505221095061
R. Canton
The priority of public protection has moved probation away from its historical concerns with providing after-care, now emphasising risk management as well as the continuation of the sentence in the community. Yet people released from prison notoriously face many difficulties in accessing the social resources they need for desistance and meet with mistrust associated with their criminal records. This paper looks at the responsibilities of the Probation Service in their supervision of people leaving prison, considering the role of probation in promoting social inclusion and supporting desistance.
{"title":"After-care, resettlement and social inclusion: The role of probation","authors":"R. Canton","doi":"10.1177/02645505221095061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02645505221095061","url":null,"abstract":"The priority of public protection has moved probation away from its historical concerns with providing after-care, now emphasising risk management as well as the continuation of the sentence in the community. Yet people released from prison notoriously face many difficulties in accessing the social resources they need for desistance and meet with mistrust associated with their criminal records. This paper looks at the responsibilities of the Probation Service in their supervision of people leaving prison, considering the role of probation in promoting social inclusion and supporting desistance.","PeriodicalId":45814,"journal":{"name":"PROBATION JOURNAL","volume":"69 1","pages":"373 - 390"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42681178","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-12DOI: 10.1177/02645505221087976
M. Herzog-Evans, J. Sturgeon
In March 2020 in response to the global pandemic, countries across Europe ordered businesses and offices to close and their citizens to stay at home. This paper is part of a wider investigation, which explores what happened to probation services in France and in Scotland during this time of national emergency. Qualitative interviews with 29 French and 27 Scottish probation staff took place during the initial lockdown, the authors wishing to capture the personal and organisational experience of practising probation at this unprecedented time. In this paper, the authors explore how probation staff in both countries responded to the news of the lockdown and how they adapted to working in these fundamentally altered circumstances. The paper explores what took place and therefore what is left of probation when the vast majority of what it usually entails becomes no longer possible. The study reveals similarities between the countries in how as human beings, probation staff responded to the pandemic and the imposition of the lockdown; it also uncovers differences in the practice that emerged, these differences reflecting the different historical roots of the two services and differences in the way that they are structured.
{"title":"French and scottish probation during the first lockdown. In search of the heart and soul of probation","authors":"M. Herzog-Evans, J. Sturgeon","doi":"10.1177/02645505221087976","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02645505221087976","url":null,"abstract":"In March 2020 in response to the global pandemic, countries across Europe ordered businesses and offices to close and their citizens to stay at home. This paper is part of a wider investigation, which explores what happened to probation services in France and in Scotland during this time of national emergency. Qualitative interviews with 29 French and 27 Scottish probation staff took place during the initial lockdown, the authors wishing to capture the personal and organisational experience of practising probation at this unprecedented time. In this paper, the authors explore how probation staff in both countries responded to the news of the lockdown and how they adapted to working in these fundamentally altered circumstances. The paper explores what took place and therefore what is left of probation when the vast majority of what it usually entails becomes no longer possible. The study reveals similarities between the countries in how as human beings, probation staff responded to the pandemic and the imposition of the lockdown; it also uncovers differences in the practice that emerged, these differences reflecting the different historical roots of the two services and differences in the way that they are structured.","PeriodicalId":45814,"journal":{"name":"PROBATION JOURNAL","volume":"69 1","pages":"197 - 215"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47559903","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-07DOI: 10.1177/02645505221093202
M. Rashid
I work as a Probation Officer; I have been doing this job for almost 15 years. I work primarily with men and have worked in major cities in England. I am a minority in England, both ethnically and religiously. I am a woman, and my family are migrants from Africa, and their grandparents were indentured labour from India. In all the ways I am different, I also often share histories of migration, of minority experience and of being an outsider with many of those I work with. This is the conversation I have with myself most mornings: Can you consider yourself an activist? I ask myself. Can you call yourself an activist, an anti-racist whilst working within this criminal justice system? Can you continue in this work and not betray yourself, your Muslim-ness, your brown-ness, your working class-ness, your immigrant-ness?
{"title":"Complex complicity: A practice note from a woman of colour on the frontline","authors":"M. Rashid","doi":"10.1177/02645505221093202","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02645505221093202","url":null,"abstract":"I work as a Probation Officer; I have been doing this job for almost 15 years. I work primarily with men and have worked in major cities in England. I am a minority in England, both ethnically and religiously. I am a woman, and my family are migrants from Africa, and their grandparents were indentured labour from India. In all the ways I am different, I also often share histories of migration, of minority experience and of being an outsider with many of those I work with. This is the conversation I have with myself most mornings: Can you consider yourself an activist? I ask myself. Can you call yourself an activist, an anti-racist whilst working within this criminal justice system? Can you continue in this work and not betray yourself, your Muslim-ness, your brown-ness, your working class-ness, your immigrant-ness?","PeriodicalId":45814,"journal":{"name":"PROBATION JOURNAL","volume":"69 1","pages":"245 - 249"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44884269","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-16DOI: 10.1177/02645505221087977
P. Raynor
This short article is a comment on the recent proposal of a What Works Centre for probation ( Sanders, Jones and Briggs, 2021). Any new ‘What Works’ initiative needs to be informed by the patchy and uneven history of research on the effectiveness of probation in England and Wales. Problems have included, at various times, failure to keep up with research in other countries; over-dependency on government departments to conduct and fund research; poor planning and/or implementation of experimental projects; excessive managerialism, and failure to engage practitioners in a research culture. Unless they are avoided, these problems will hamper any new initiative.
这篇短文是对What Works Centre最近提出的缓刑建议的评论（Sanders，Jones和Briggs，2021）。任何新的“什么有效”倡议都需要了解英格兰和威尔士缓刑有效性研究的不完整和不均衡的历史。问题包括，在不同时期，未能跟上其他国家的研究；过度依赖政府部门开展和资助研究；实验项目规划和（或）实施不力；过度的管理主义，以及未能让从业者参与研究文化。除非避免这些问题，否则这些问题将阻碍任何新的倡议。
{"title":"What works in promoting ‘What Works’? A comment on Sanders, Jones and Briggs","authors":"P. Raynor","doi":"10.1177/02645505221087977","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02645505221087977","url":null,"abstract":"This short article is a comment on the recent proposal of a What Works Centre for probation ( Sanders, Jones and Briggs, 2021). Any new ‘What Works’ initiative needs to be informed by the patchy and uneven history of research on the effectiveness of probation in England and Wales. Problems have included, at various times, failure to keep up with research in other countries; over-dependency on government departments to conduct and fund research; poor planning and/or implementation of experimental projects; excessive managerialism, and failure to engage practitioners in a research culture. Unless they are avoided, these problems will hamper any new initiative.","PeriodicalId":45814,"journal":{"name":"PROBATION JOURNAL","volume":"69 1","pages":"235 - 244"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43924121","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-01DOI: 10.1177/02645505221082861
N. Carr
This issue of the journal contains several articles that focus on women in the criminal justice system. These traverse a range of different geographical contexts, including Lithuania, Catalonia, the United States and England and Wales, and explore issues ranging from probation staff perspectives to women’s experiences of victimisation. and stigmatization. A common theme of many of the contributions is the pervasive impacts of systemic failures that mean that the criminal justice system becomes the point of recourse for addressing social needs. This is a longstanding refrain echoed in a plethora of research on women and the criminal justice system, so much so that that is has become depressingly familiar. So too are responses that situate the solution within the purview of the criminal justice system. The National Audit Office has just published a report on the outcomes for women in the criminal justice system in England and Wales (NAO, 2022). The report cites familiar data regarding the profile of women in the criminal justice system, including the fact that while the female prison population remains relatively low (4%), the preponderance of custodial sentences are for less than 12 months (77%), and reoffending rates on release from custody remain stubbornly high. 71% if women reoffended following custodial sentences of less than 12 months in 2016 (NAO, 2022). Notwithstanding the wealth of evidence regarding the harmful effects of custody and the ineffectiveness of prison sentences in reducing offending, the government has recently committed to the expansion of the prison estate. In 2021 the Ministry of Justice announced plans to expand provision by building up to 500 additional prison places for women at an estimated cost of £200 million. This forecast expenditure contrasts with just £9.5 million allocated by the Ministry to fund services for women in the community between 2018 and 2022, and an allocation of £4.8 million in 2020–2022 towards developing five planned Residential Women’s Centres (RWCs), which are intended to reduce the numbers of women remanded into custody (NAO, 2022). The National Audit Office’s analysis of this imbalanced expenditure, which they assess in light of the government’s own policy commitments set out in the Female Offender Strategy, (MoJ, 2018) makes for stark reading. The Female Offender Strategy included plans to reduce the number of women entering the criminal justice system by providing support in the community at an earlier stage; have fewer women in custody (especially for short sentences) and utilise community sentences to a greater degree, where appropriate, and to create better conditions for women in custody, including increased supports on release (MoJ, 2018). Editorial The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
{"title":"Plus ça change? Women and the criminal justice system","authors":"N. Carr","doi":"10.1177/02645505221082861","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02645505221082861","url":null,"abstract":"This issue of the journal contains several articles that focus on women in the criminal justice system. These traverse a range of different geographical contexts, including Lithuania, Catalonia, the United States and England and Wales, and explore issues ranging from probation staff perspectives to women’s experiences of victimisation. and stigmatization. A common theme of many of the contributions is the pervasive impacts of systemic failures that mean that the criminal justice system becomes the point of recourse for addressing social needs. This is a longstanding refrain echoed in a plethora of research on women and the criminal justice system, so much so that that is has become depressingly familiar. So too are responses that situate the solution within the purview of the criminal justice system. The National Audit Office has just published a report on the outcomes for women in the criminal justice system in England and Wales (NAO, 2022). The report cites familiar data regarding the profile of women in the criminal justice system, including the fact that while the female prison population remains relatively low (4%), the preponderance of custodial sentences are for less than 12 months (77%), and reoffending rates on release from custody remain stubbornly high. 71% if women reoffended following custodial sentences of less than 12 months in 2016 (NAO, 2022). Notwithstanding the wealth of evidence regarding the harmful effects of custody and the ineffectiveness of prison sentences in reducing offending, the government has recently committed to the expansion of the prison estate. In 2021 the Ministry of Justice announced plans to expand provision by building up to 500 additional prison places for women at an estimated cost of £200 million. This forecast expenditure contrasts with just £9.5 million allocated by the Ministry to fund services for women in the community between 2018 and 2022, and an allocation of £4.8 million in 2020–2022 towards developing five planned Residential Women’s Centres (RWCs), which are intended to reduce the numbers of women remanded into custody (NAO, 2022). The National Audit Office’s analysis of this imbalanced expenditure, which they assess in light of the government’s own policy commitments set out in the Female Offender Strategy, (MoJ, 2018) makes for stark reading. The Female Offender Strategy included plans to reduce the number of women entering the criminal justice system by providing support in the community at an earlier stage; have fewer women in custody (especially for short sentences) and utilise community sentences to a greater degree, where appropriate, and to create better conditions for women in custody, including increased supports on release (MoJ, 2018). Editorial The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice","PeriodicalId":45814,"journal":{"name":"PROBATION JOURNAL","volume":"69 1","pages":"3 - 5"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47634182","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-01DOI: 10.1177/02645505211066356
N. Stone
Aged 18, without prior convictions and living with her new partner (T.), B. had just received a message that another young woman (S.) was pregnant by him and confronted him. When he denied any knowledge of S. she put her arm round his throat from behind as he sat on a sofa, holding a substantial kitchen knife to his chest for a sustained period while telling him that she wanted to kill him and then herself. When she had let go of him T. called the police; she told the officers what she had done. Following her guilty plea to making threat to kill, a PSR (pre-sentence report) described her as ‘child-like’, vulnerable and presenting as younger than her age, proposing a community order with a rehabilitative activity requirement to address her thinking skills and developmental maturation needs. A psychiatric report similarly noted her ‘developmental delay’, impulsivity and learning difficulties, and her history of anxiety and depression, in tandem with ASD (autism spectrum disorder) and ADHD. Agreeing that this was ‘a very sad case’, the judge observed that B. was ‘incapable of controlling her anger’. Application of the relevant Guideline (Intimidatory Offences, 2018) indicated higher culpability (Level A) (given the presence of a visible weapon and an offence in the victim’s home) and harm at Level 2 (distress and psychological harm short of very serious and significant – T. had submitted a victim statement attesting to the flashbacks he was experiencing), thus indicating a starting point of 24 months’ custody with a range between 12 and 48 months. Adopting that starting point and giving full credit for plea, the judge imposed 16 months’ YOI detention, remarking that if the defendant had been a man and his victim a woman, there would be an outcry were he not to impose a sentence of immediate custody. The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
{"title":"In court","authors":"N. Stone","doi":"10.1177/02645505211066356","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02645505211066356","url":null,"abstract":"Aged 18, without prior convictions and living with her new partner (T.), B. had just received a message that another young woman (S.) was pregnant by him and confronted him. When he denied any knowledge of S. she put her arm round his throat from behind as he sat on a sofa, holding a substantial kitchen knife to his chest for a sustained period while telling him that she wanted to kill him and then herself. When she had let go of him T. called the police; she told the officers what she had done. Following her guilty plea to making threat to kill, a PSR (pre-sentence report) described her as ‘child-like’, vulnerable and presenting as younger than her age, proposing a community order with a rehabilitative activity requirement to address her thinking skills and developmental maturation needs. A psychiatric report similarly noted her ‘developmental delay’, impulsivity and learning difficulties, and her history of anxiety and depression, in tandem with ASD (autism spectrum disorder) and ADHD. Agreeing that this was ‘a very sad case’, the judge observed that B. was ‘incapable of controlling her anger’. Application of the relevant Guideline (Intimidatory Offences, 2018) indicated higher culpability (Level A) (given the presence of a visible weapon and an offence in the victim’s home) and harm at Level 2 (distress and psychological harm short of very serious and significant – T. had submitted a victim statement attesting to the flashbacks he was experiencing), thus indicating a starting point of 24 months’ custody with a range between 12 and 48 months. Adopting that starting point and giving full credit for plea, the judge imposed 16 months’ YOI detention, remarking that if the defendant had been a man and his victim a woman, there would be an outcry were he not to impose a sentence of immediate custody. The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice","PeriodicalId":45814,"journal":{"name":"PROBATION JOURNAL","volume":"69 1","pages":"119 - 132"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44783453","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：