Pub Date : 2023-04-20DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2023.2175073
S. Shepherd
{"title":"Crime, Mental Health and the Criminal Justice System in Africa: A Psycho-Criminological Perspective,","authors":"S. Shepherd","doi":"10.1080/13218719.2023.2175073","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2023.2175073","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51553,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatry Psychology and Law","volume":"30 1","pages":"418 - 421"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49549769","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-02DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2022.2142977
L. Ng, A. Merry, R. Paterson, S. Merry
The aim of this study is to identify the methods and content of hospital-based serious incident reviews involving mental health related homicide where a service user was the perpetrator between 2007 and 2017. Eleven reports were obtained from mental health services in New Zealand’s largest city and thematically analysed. Nine used the London protocol to identify clinical and system factors that may have contributed to the serious incident, but there was considerable variation in the way in which it was applied. Feedback to services was inconsistent. The voices of family members of the victims were largely absent and consideration of cultural context was missing. A structured protocol to specifically address the mental health context in New Zealand and internationally could resolve some of these issues and lead to a process that is more likely to provide comprehensive coverage of relevant matters and produce clear recommendations to effect improvements to services.
{"title":"Qualitative study of district health board inquiries into mental health related homicide in a New Zealand sample","authors":"L. Ng, A. Merry, R. Paterson, S. Merry","doi":"10.1080/13218719.2022.2142977","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2022.2142977","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this study is to identify the methods and content of hospital-based serious incident reviews involving mental health related homicide where a service user was the perpetrator between 2007 and 2017. Eleven reports were obtained from mental health services in New Zealand’s largest city and thematically analysed. Nine used the London protocol to identify clinical and system factors that may have contributed to the serious incident, but there was considerable variation in the way in which it was applied. Feedback to services was inconsistent. The voices of family members of the victims were largely absent and consideration of cultural context was missing. A structured protocol to specifically address the mental health context in New Zealand and internationally could resolve some of these issues and lead to a process that is more likely to provide comprehensive coverage of relevant matters and produce clear recommendations to effect improvements to services.","PeriodicalId":51553,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatry Psychology and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48210170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-02DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2022.2142974
Eunro Lee, J. Goodman-Delahunty, Natalie Martschuk, Nina J Westera, Martine B. Powell
The need to educate criminal justice professionals about best practices to cross-examine complainants of child sexual abuse is widely acknowledged. Yet, a dearth of empirical information about their perceptions has hindered development of targeted professional education programmes. The present study compared perceptions of the quality of cross-examination of a child and an adolescent complainant between judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers, police officers and witness support staff. Questioning type (appropriate/inappropriate) and judicial intervention (present/absent) were varied. Results of two-parameter Item Response Theory modelling showed that defence lawyers perceived significantly less unfairness to the complainant than the other professional groups. Judges’ views of unfairness were driven by the potential for confusion more than the age-inappropriate questioning. Police officers and witness support staff more likely rated the cross-examination as deleterious to the credibility and reliability of the complainant. Topics to include in professional development programmes around eliciting best evidence from vulnerable witnesses are discussed.
{"title":"Using item response theory modelling to understand criminal justice professionals’ perceptions of cross-examination in child sexual abuse trials","authors":"Eunro Lee, J. Goodman-Delahunty, Natalie Martschuk, Nina J Westera, Martine B. Powell","doi":"10.1080/13218719.2022.2142974","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2022.2142974","url":null,"abstract":"The need to educate criminal justice professionals about best practices to cross-examine complainants of child sexual abuse is widely acknowledged. Yet, a dearth of empirical information about their perceptions has hindered development of targeted professional education programmes. The present study compared perceptions of the quality of cross-examination of a child and an adolescent complainant between judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers, police officers and witness support staff. Questioning type (appropriate/inappropriate) and judicial intervention (present/absent) were varied. Results of two-parameter Item Response Theory modelling showed that defence lawyers perceived significantly less unfairness to the complainant than the other professional groups. Judges’ views of unfairness were driven by the potential for confusion more than the age-inappropriate questioning. Police officers and witness support staff more likely rated the cross-examination as deleterious to the credibility and reliability of the complainant. Topics to include in professional development programmes around eliciting best evidence from vulnerable witnesses are discussed.","PeriodicalId":51553,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatry Psychology and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41596335","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-02DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2022.2142976
Gaurav Saxena, H. Eisenbarth, J. Cox, Adam D. Coffey, Claire Lankford
Perceptions of a defendant’s psychopathic personality traits can impact mock jurors’ decision making, yet findings on the relationship of jurors’ and defendants’ gender on legal decision making have been inconsistent. This study investigates the relationship between defendant prototypical gender-congruent or -incongruent psychopathic traits and mock jurors’ perception and sentencing recommendations. In a between-subject design, participants (N = 1,721) rendered a verdict and rated the extent to which they perceived the defendant as legally responsible, morally responsible, and their recidivism risk. Participants prescribed harsher punishments and held more negative perceptions of a defendant with psychopathic traits than a defendant without these traits. However, the defendant received similar punishment and was judged equally negatively in both gender-congruent and -incongruent conditions. Finally, while men were more likely to choose the death verdict, women held more negative views of the defendant. Thus, portrayal of psychopathic traits seems related to harsher sentencing independent of gender-specific trait variations.
{"title":"Defendant psychopathic traits, but not defendant gender, predict death penalty verdicts in mock-juror decision making","authors":"Gaurav Saxena, H. Eisenbarth, J. Cox, Adam D. Coffey, Claire Lankford","doi":"10.1080/13218719.2022.2142976","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2022.2142976","url":null,"abstract":"Perceptions of a defendant’s psychopathic personality traits can impact mock jurors’ decision making, yet findings on the relationship of jurors’ and defendants’ gender on legal decision making have been inconsistent. This study investigates the relationship between defendant prototypical gender-congruent or -incongruent psychopathic traits and mock jurors’ perception and sentencing recommendations. In a between-subject design, participants (N = 1,721) rendered a verdict and rated the extent to which they perceived the defendant as legally responsible, morally responsible, and their recidivism risk. Participants prescribed harsher punishments and held more negative perceptions of a defendant with psychopathic traits than a defendant without these traits. However, the defendant received similar punishment and was judged equally negatively in both gender-congruent and -incongruent conditions. Finally, while men were more likely to choose the death verdict, women held more negative views of the defendant. Thus, portrayal of psychopathic traits seems related to harsher sentencing independent of gender-specific trait variations.","PeriodicalId":51553,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatry Psychology and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41598046","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-31DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2022.2142973
M. Rowlands, F. P. Morrison, E. Brock, H. Stocker, D. Green, D. Marks, D. Castano
According to the DSM-5, an individual is diagnosed with a paraphilic disorder when there are persistent behaviours or fantasies that cause distress and/or impairment. However, there is limited research on assessing a continuum of paraphilic interest. The current study sampled 1,650 individuals (age range = 18–93 years, M = 33.64, SD = 16.1) from the general population in assessing a novel 53-item scale – Atypical Sexual Interests Scale (ASIS) – that measures six atypical interests: devotism, frotteurism, voyeurism, exhibitionism, sexual sadism, and sexual masochism. Factor analyses identified that the six-factor model was a poor fit, with the former suggesting a four-factor model; 21 poorly performing items were consequently removed from the scale, and a second confirmatory factor analysis was run. While the six-factor model was a better fit on the refined ASIS compared to unitary and four-factor models, three subscales (frotteurism, voyeurism and exhibitionism) possibly ‘tap into’ a single courtship deviation construct.
{"title":"Development of the atypical sexual interests (self-report) scale: the dimensional structure of paraphilia","authors":"M. Rowlands, F. P. Morrison, E. Brock, H. Stocker, D. Green, D. Marks, D. Castano","doi":"10.1080/13218719.2022.2142973","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2022.2142973","url":null,"abstract":"According to the DSM-5, an individual is diagnosed with a paraphilic disorder when there are persistent behaviours or fantasies that cause distress and/or impairment. However, there is limited research on assessing a continuum of paraphilic interest. The current study sampled 1,650 individuals (age range = 18–93 years, M = 33.64, SD = 16.1) from the general population in assessing a novel 53-item scale – Atypical Sexual Interests Scale (ASIS) – that measures six atypical interests: devotism, frotteurism, voyeurism, exhibitionism, sexual sadism, and sexual masochism. Factor analyses identified that the six-factor model was a poor fit, with the former suggesting a four-factor model; 21 poorly performing items were consequently removed from the scale, and a second confirmatory factor analysis was run. While the six-factor model was a better fit on the refined ASIS compared to unitary and four-factor models, three subscales (frotteurism, voyeurism and exhibitionism) possibly ‘tap into’ a single courtship deviation construct.","PeriodicalId":51553,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatry Psychology and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49306742","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-23DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2022.2142975
L. Phillips, M. Pathé, T. Mcewan
This study sought to estimate the frequency of harassment, threats, assault and stalking faced by Victorian Members of Parliament (MPs), with a focus on gender and experience of online abuse. 46 of 128 MPs completed an online survey (36%). 82% reported experiences of harassment, 85% reported threats of harm, and 35% reported stalking, with most reporting lifestyle changes in response. Female MPs were more likely than males to report all these experiences. Almost 100% of MPs using social media reported online abuse. Abuse about political positions or general defamatory statements were most common (95% and 87% respectively) and were experienced equally by male and female MPs. 50% reported gender-based abuse, with 85% of female MPs reporting such abuse. Results highlight the frequency and impact of abuse and harassment of MPs by the public, and support the need for increased awareness of, and accessibility to, expert advice, threat assessment and interventions.
{"title":"Gender differences in stalking, threats and online abuse reported by Victorian politicians","authors":"L. Phillips, M. Pathé, T. Mcewan","doi":"10.1080/13218719.2022.2142975","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2022.2142975","url":null,"abstract":"This study sought to estimate the frequency of harassment, threats, assault and stalking faced by Victorian Members of Parliament (MPs), with a focus on gender and experience of online abuse. 46 of 128 MPs completed an online survey (36%). 82% reported experiences of harassment, 85% reported threats of harm, and 35% reported stalking, with most reporting lifestyle changes in response. Female MPs were more likely than males to report all these experiences. Almost 100% of MPs using social media reported online abuse. Abuse about political positions or general defamatory statements were most common (95% and 87% respectively) and were experienced equally by male and female MPs. 50% reported gender-based abuse, with 85% of female MPs reporting such abuse. Results highlight the frequency and impact of abuse and harassment of MPs by the public, and support the need for increased awareness of, and accessibility to, expert advice, threat assessment and interventions.","PeriodicalId":51553,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatry Psychology and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42072873","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2022.2135189
A. Carroll, R. Darjee
Since its inception in 1978, ANZAPPL has sought to foster dialogue between legal professionals and mental health professionals. Importantly, this endeavour has always been not multidisciplinary but interdisciplinary: it is not simply that different professions make distinct contributions to the effective working of the law; rather, there are interactive relationships between the work done in their distinct professional discourses. The needs of the law pose certain questions that mental health experts may seek to answer; conversely, mental health professionals provide answers that may shape and at times constrain jurisprudence. The nuances and complexities of this dialectical relationship are especially evident in the domain of criminal responsibility and the associated issue of appropriate sentencing practice as applied to persons with mental health concerns. There is a natural synergy between the aims of ANZAPPL and those of the RANZCP Faculty of Forensic Psychiatry: training and professional development in the delivery of expert evidence to the courts and other decision making bodies is a central aim of the Faculty. The one day event on which this special edition of the journal is based was delivered jointly by the two bodies. It brought together a diverse range of outstanding experts in an effort to illuminate a range of emerging themes relevant to criminal responsibility and mental health. We were fortunate indeed to have President Chris Maxwell open the proceedings. In his scene-setting paper, he eloquently provides a comprehensive but accessible overview of the moral philosophical underpinnings of criminal responsibility. In doing so he illustrates the importance of mental health expertise in ensuring that the courts discharge their responsibilities in a way that is not only fair and just, but also promotes constructive public policy. In passing, we acknowledge here the immense contribution that President Maxwell has made to promoting psychologicallyinformed jurisprudence throughout his career, most notably in his tenure as President of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. Jamie Walvisch, in a typically scholarly and well-reasoned paper, discusses the important emerging construct of ‘meta-culpability’. In doing so, not only does he clearly lay out the philosophical foundations for that construct but also lays bare both its strengths and its limitations, illustrating the complex interplay between jurisprudential thinking and the mental health field. He argues that mental health experts should adopt comprehensive
{"title":"Introduction to special edition","authors":"A. Carroll, R. Darjee","doi":"10.1080/13218719.2022.2135189","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2022.2135189","url":null,"abstract":"Since its inception in 1978, ANZAPPL has sought to foster dialogue between legal professionals and mental health professionals. Importantly, this endeavour has always been not multidisciplinary but interdisciplinary: it is not simply that different professions make distinct contributions to the effective working of the law; rather, there are interactive relationships between the work done in their distinct professional discourses. The needs of the law pose certain questions that mental health experts may seek to answer; conversely, mental health professionals provide answers that may shape and at times constrain jurisprudence. The nuances and complexities of this dialectical relationship are especially evident in the domain of criminal responsibility and the associated issue of appropriate sentencing practice as applied to persons with mental health concerns. There is a natural synergy between the aims of ANZAPPL and those of the RANZCP Faculty of Forensic Psychiatry: training and professional development in the delivery of expert evidence to the courts and other decision making bodies is a central aim of the Faculty. The one day event on which this special edition of the journal is based was delivered jointly by the two bodies. It brought together a diverse range of outstanding experts in an effort to illuminate a range of emerging themes relevant to criminal responsibility and mental health. We were fortunate indeed to have President Chris Maxwell open the proceedings. In his scene-setting paper, he eloquently provides a comprehensive but accessible overview of the moral philosophical underpinnings of criminal responsibility. In doing so he illustrates the importance of mental health expertise in ensuring that the courts discharge their responsibilities in a way that is not only fair and just, but also promotes constructive public policy. In passing, we acknowledge here the immense contribution that President Maxwell has made to promoting psychologicallyinformed jurisprudence throughout his career, most notably in his tenure as President of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. Jamie Walvisch, in a typically scholarly and well-reasoned paper, discusses the important emerging construct of ‘meta-culpability’. In doing so, not only does he clearly lay out the philosophical foundations for that construct but also lays bare both its strengths and its limitations, illustrating the complex interplay between jurisprudential thinking and the mental health field. He argues that mental health experts should adopt comprehensive","PeriodicalId":51553,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatry Psychology and Law","volume":"30 1","pages":"1 - 3"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45861276","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-23DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2022.2124550
B. McSherry
This multidisciplinary edited collection provides a range of perspectives on how the criminal justice system currently responds to individuals living with acquired brain injury and/or traumatic brain injury or fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The three editors are academics at Monash University with respective backgrounds in law, social work and criminology and they have co-authored the first and final chapters of the collection as well as two other chapters (one of those co-authored with Rebecca Bunn). The editors have assembled contributors from the United States, England, South Africa and Australia, many of them academics with backgrounds in law, psychiatry, psychology, sociology and neuroscience. The collection developed out of the editors’ empirical research funded by the Office of the Public Advocate in Victoria, and many of the authors attended a meeting at the Monash campus in Prato, Italy to discuss their contributions. That background to the book has obviously contributed to a sense of overall cohesion which is sometimes lacking in edited collections. This collection deals with a little-explored area of the criminal justice system, and that in itself is commendable. However, it is worthwhile setting out some concerns with the way in which the topic is framed. The editors use the term ‘neurodisability’ in its broadest sense to include ‘acquired brain injury (ABI) and/or traumatic brain injury (TBI), autism, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD), and intellectual disability’. The risk of using such a broad term that encompasses so many conditions is that nuance can be lost. Lumping so many diverse conditions under an umbrella term also brings with it the danger of unintentional ‘othering’ of persons with disabilities. I baulked, for example, at one reference to people with Williams syndrome being described as ‘the Golden Retrievers of humanity’ (p. 28). Comparing persons with disabilities to animals, even if well-intentioned, undercuts attempts to ensure ‘the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity’. It is also possible that a broad term such as neurodisability might give rise to questionable assumptions about the association between the conditions listed and criminal behaviour. The editors, for example, write, without any footnote references, that ‘ABI, TBI, FASD and ID and other forms of disability are becoming increasingly recognised as major contributors to criminal behaviours’ (emphasis added, p. 13). Such a generalisation risks conflating correlation with causation, and more care could have been taken in this regard. Some of the authors do refer to the complexities associated with the diagnoses of ABI, TBI and FASD, which is to be expected, but
{"title":"Book Review of Neurodisability and the Criminal Justice System: Comparative and Therapeutic Responses,","authors":"B. McSherry","doi":"10.1080/13218719.2022.2124550","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2022.2124550","url":null,"abstract":"This multidisciplinary edited collection provides a range of perspectives on how the criminal justice system currently responds to individuals living with acquired brain injury and/or traumatic brain injury or fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The three editors are academics at Monash University with respective backgrounds in law, social work and criminology and they have co-authored the first and final chapters of the collection as well as two other chapters (one of those co-authored with Rebecca Bunn). The editors have assembled contributors from the United States, England, South Africa and Australia, many of them academics with backgrounds in law, psychiatry, psychology, sociology and neuroscience. The collection developed out of the editors’ empirical research funded by the Office of the Public Advocate in Victoria, and many of the authors attended a meeting at the Monash campus in Prato, Italy to discuss their contributions. That background to the book has obviously contributed to a sense of overall cohesion which is sometimes lacking in edited collections. This collection deals with a little-explored area of the criminal justice system, and that in itself is commendable. However, it is worthwhile setting out some concerns with the way in which the topic is framed. The editors use the term ‘neurodisability’ in its broadest sense to include ‘acquired brain injury (ABI) and/or traumatic brain injury (TBI), autism, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD), and intellectual disability’. The risk of using such a broad term that encompasses so many conditions is that nuance can be lost. Lumping so many diverse conditions under an umbrella term also brings with it the danger of unintentional ‘othering’ of persons with disabilities. I baulked, for example, at one reference to people with Williams syndrome being described as ‘the Golden Retrievers of humanity’ (p. 28). Comparing persons with disabilities to animals, even if well-intentioned, undercuts attempts to ensure ‘the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity’. It is also possible that a broad term such as neurodisability might give rise to questionable assumptions about the association between the conditions listed and criminal behaviour. The editors, for example, write, without any footnote references, that ‘ABI, TBI, FASD and ID and other forms of disability are becoming increasingly recognised as major contributors to criminal behaviours’ (emphasis added, p. 13). Such a generalisation risks conflating correlation with causation, and more care could have been taken in this regard. Some of the authors do refer to the complexities associated with the diagnoses of ABI, TBI and FASD, which is to be expected, but","PeriodicalId":51553,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatry Psychology and Law","volume":"30 1","pages":"224 - 227"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48281971","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-22DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2022.2136278
Grant A. Blake, J. Ogloff, Natalia Antolak-Saper
Forensic mental health clinicians are often tasked with assessing and reporting upon a defendant’s fitness for trial. However, because fitness is a legal construct, not a clinical one, clinicians are often unaware of the impairment thresholds to be found unfit to stand trial. Common law holds that only ‘basic’ abilities are required to be fit in Australia, yet what constitutes basic abilities is not defined in legislation. The following article presents a review of fitness case law and outlines how R v Presser 1 (‘Presser’) has been interpreted in the Australian courts. The seven Presser standards are systematically reviewed to explain what abilities a defendant must possess under each criterion and the degree of impairment required to be found fit or unfit to stand trial, and indicates where proportionality (eg the seriousness of the charge, complexity of the evidence) has been applied to raise or lower the threshold for fitness.
{"title":"Interpreting R v Presser: a clinician’s guide to contemporary Australian fitness to stand trial case law","authors":"Grant A. Blake, J. Ogloff, Natalia Antolak-Saper","doi":"10.1080/13218719.2022.2136278","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2022.2136278","url":null,"abstract":"Forensic mental health clinicians are often tasked with assessing and reporting upon a defendant’s fitness for trial. However, because fitness is a legal construct, not a clinical one, clinicians are often unaware of the impairment thresholds to be found unfit to stand trial. Common law holds that only ‘basic’ abilities are required to be fit in Australia, yet what constitutes basic abilities is not defined in legislation. The following article presents a review of fitness case law and outlines how R v Presser 1 (‘Presser’) has been interpreted in the Australian courts. The seven Presser standards are systematically reviewed to explain what abilities a defendant must possess under each criterion and the degree of impairment required to be found fit or unfit to stand trial, and indicates where proportionality (eg the seriousness of the charge, complexity of the evidence) has been applied to raise or lower the threshold for fitness.","PeriodicalId":51553,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatry Psychology and Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44546296","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-01DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2022.2124548
K. Mcvilly, Molly McCarthy, A. Day, A. Birgden, Catia G. Malvaso
Many young people in the criminal justice systems of both Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand will have cognitive disabilities and neurodiversity, and substantial challenges arise in efforts to provide services that will adequately meet their needs. This is despite the introduction of funding models based on an assessment of individual needs (rather than block funding to organisations). In this narrative scoping review, we argue that justice agencies will need to partner with specialist disability support services if they are to meet the needs of those in both custodial and community settings. This requires knowledge of the nature and prevalence of disability in the youth justice population, awareness of available service responses and the development of skills to engage young people in services and programmes that will support rehabilitation and community inclusion.
{"title":"Identifying and responding to young people with cognitive disability and neurodiversity in Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand youth justice systems","authors":"K. Mcvilly, Molly McCarthy, A. Day, A. Birgden, Catia G. Malvaso","doi":"10.1080/13218719.2022.2124548","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2022.2124548","url":null,"abstract":"Many young people in the criminal justice systems of both Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand will have cognitive disabilities and neurodiversity, and substantial challenges arise in efforts to provide services that will adequately meet their needs. This is despite the introduction of funding models based on an assessment of individual needs (rather than block funding to organisations). In this narrative scoping review, we argue that justice agencies will need to partner with specialist disability support services if they are to meet the needs of those in both custodial and community settings. This requires knowledge of the nature and prevalence of disability in the youth justice population, awareness of available service responses and the development of skills to engage young people in services and programmes that will support rehabilitation and community inclusion.","PeriodicalId":51553,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatry Psychology and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47161199","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","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：