Within the domains of criminal justice and mental health care, critical debate concerning ‘care’ versus ‘control’ and ‘therapy’ versus ‘security’ is now commonplace. Indeed, the ‘hybridisation’ of these areas is now a familiar theme.
This unique and topical text provides an array of expert analyses from key contributors in the field that explore the interface between criminal justice and mental health. Using concise yet robust definitions of key terms and concepts, it consolidates scholarly analysis of theory, policy and practice. Readers are provided with practical debates, in addition to the theoretical and ideological concerns surrounding the risk assessment, treatment, control and risk management in a cross-disciplinary context.
Included in this book is recommended further reading and an index of legislation, making it an ideal resource for students at undergraduate and postgraduate level, together with researchers and practitioners in the field.
The history of crime and punishment is an important, yet under-resourced area of criminology and criminal justice.
This valuable book provides concise but robust definitions of key terms and concepts, going well beyond a simple explanation of the word or theme. Offering a succinct approach to the vocabulary and terminology of historical and contemporary approaches to crime and punishment, it includes entries from expert contributors in a user-friendly A-Z format with clear direction to related entries and further reading. Including explanations of terms ranging from 'garrotting' to The Bow Street Runners, baby farming to juvenile delinquency, this easily accessible text will be ideal for the reader to draw on across the variety of modules and studies relating to the topic.
This is the first accessible, succinct text to provide definitions and explanations of key terms and concepts relating to the expanding field of crime, harm and victimisation. Written by a wide range of experts, it includes theories, ideas and case studies relating to victims of conventional crime and victims outside the remit of criminal law. It encapsulates the domestic and international nature, extent and measurement of victims of crime and harm, together with responses to victims and victimisation as a result of conventional, corporate and state crimes and harms.
As part of the Companion series, entries are presented in a user-friendly A-Z format with clear links to related entries and further reading, allowing easy navigation for both students and practitioners. Filling a gap in the market, this is a good source and quick reference point for undergraduates studying a variety of courses in criminology, criminal justice, victimology and other related disciplines.
Interest in the study of state power, civil liberties, human rights, and state sponsored crime is growing and there is a need for a book which brings these topics together. This book, part of the Companions series, provides succinct yet robust definitions and explanations of core concepts and themes in relation to state power, liberties and human rights. The entries are bound by their inter-relatedness and relevance to the study of crime and harm and the volume draws upon established and emerging commentaries from other social and political disciplines.
Laid out in a user-friendly A-Z format, it includes entries from expert contributors with clear direction to related entries and further reading. The contributors critically engage with the topics in an accessible yet challenging way, ensuring that the definitions go beyond a simple explanation of the word or theme.
It will be suitable for undergraduate and postgraduate students on a variety of courses such as Criminology, Criminal Justice, International Relations, Politics, Social Policy, Policing Studies, and Law as well as other researchers in these areas.
An increasing number of institutions of higher education in Britain advertise themselves as ‘Equal Opportunities Employers’. A variety of evidence is presented from reports from the Commission for Racial Equality and the Hansard Society, case studies from a polytechnic and a university and published evidence from Oxford. Queen’s University, Belfast and University College, London. It shows that progress in the implementation of equal opportunities policies in British higher education is unimpressive, foundering at the stage of monitoring recruitment practices. Managements believe the criterion of academic merit is a guarantee against discrimination and are resistant to the introduction of effective equal opportunities policies. The CVCP Guidance on Good Practice for Equal Opportunities in Employment in Universities, emphasising positive action, is a significant step forward at a timely moment. It highlights fundamental and much neglected issues in the management of higher education.
This chapter provides a summary of the findings of the Prostitution Law Review Committee and its recommendations to the Minister of Justice. It was written by Paul Fitzharris, who chaired the committee. In the committee’s review of the Prostitution Reform Act, two assessments were presented. One was a review conducted in April 2005 that assessed the nature and extent of the sex industry in New Zealand prior to the decriminalisation in 2003. The second review, which was conducted in June 2008, evaluated the operation of the Act. It also assessed the numbers of people working as sex workers, the nature and adequacy of the means to cease working as sex workers, and whether any amendments to the legislation were required. The review was highlighted by the ‘purpose’ of the legislation, which focused on the human rights, health, and welfare and safety of the sex workers, as well as the prohibition of young persons in the sex industry. Apart from providing a summary of the findings of the committee, the chapter also outlines the approach that the committee adopted to complete its work. This included consultation with the government agencies, local authorities, interested organisations, public, and research bodies.
This paper relates the findings of an exploratory study of opinions on the role of the state in welfare to issues of social integration. The focus is on public opinion about the interrelation of welfare provision and the means used by governments to finance it. The analysis shows that ideas in this area are complex and that value judgements about the nature of the welfare state appear to playas important a role as conceptions of self-interest. The suggestion of some recent writing that divisions on the lines of perceived group interest threaten social legitimacy is not confirmed. However, there is also little evidence for the view that state welfare provision may playa strong positive role in generating a moral commitment to social integration. The considerations that influence people’s judgements reflect a complex interpenetration of the interests on the one hand and evaluations on the other that underlie each of these positions.
The structured pains of imprisonment have long been identified in the penological literature, though the analysis by Gresham Sykes (1958, pp 63–83) in his book Society of captives is perhaps most well-known. For Sykes, the ‘pains of imprisonment’ are the deprivations of liberty, goods and services, heterosexual relationships, autonomy, and security. Thomas Mathiesen (1986) explains that the deprivations of liberty and autonomy are the most significant pains of confinement as they are impossible to overcome in the prison place. These structured pains cannot be removed through improving prison conditions – the environment could be very pleasant but the deprivations of liberty and freedom remain unaltered.
The structured ‘pains of imprisonment’ are, then, not to be found in the given quality of living conditions, relationships with staff or levels of crowding. At times, prisons are places of frantic activities; yet, paradoxically, at others, they are empty, dull and motionless (Cope, 2003). It is the dreadful emptiness of prison life that is the real terror (Medlicott, 2001). This conscious wasting of life, the enforced passivity and the emptiness of time are sources of ‘acute suffering’ (Medlicott, 2001). The negation of the ability to control time and space is something that affects the well-being of everyone. Prisons hurt, therefore, because of the denial of personal autonomy, feelings of time consciousness and the lack of an effective vocabulary to express the hardship of watching life slip away.
For penal abolitionists, the prison place should be conceived as a highly toxic environment, undermining constructions of the self for all prisoners.
Those identified as experiencing ‘mental impairment’ have long been the subject of inquiry, and, broadly speaking, the data produced on this population can be classified as quantitative and/or qualitative in nature. Research has contributed to the ever-increasing body of knowledge about mental health and has often created competing and contested theories about those deemed mentally ill.
Quantitative inquiry typically involves the measurement of mental health/illness or its perceived impact and results in the construction of statistics that describe the incidence of mental illness and its effects (eg the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide by People with Mental Illness) or measure or assess the population’s limitations or ‘capacity to perform’ (Fujiura and Rutkowski-Kmitta, 2001). Although such measurements may help agencies make decisions in terms of forming/reforming services (eg the use of Atos to carry out health assessments that determine a person’s capability to work – and, hence, assess their entitlement to welfare support), there is much criticism about the use of quantitative measurement within disability research. Quantitative inquiry relies on objective measurement of phenomena and tends to treat mental illness as static and unchangeable, often separating the environment from the ‘biophysical’. Other influential examples of quantitative inquiry include the proliferation of quality of life (QoL) measures, which seek to measure the psychosocial impact of a variety of illnesses. In part, QoL measures assist in reminding health-care professionals (HCPs) that the social context of illness is important. Also, such measures may help HCPs arrive at clinical decisions best suited to the individual’s life.
Race equality within the context of mental health policy refers to the equal treatment, both morally and legally, of citizens regardless of their racial background. Discriminatory treatment that disadvantages one racial group over another is prohibited by law. In addition, there is guidance within mental health services outlining the need for race equality and some practice guidance on how this is to be achieved.
However, research has found that people of black African and Caribbean background are disproportionately more likely to be admitted to mental health institutions, such as psychiatric hospitals (Nacro, 2007). This has resulted in accusations of ‘institutional racism’ (see Sashidharan, 2003). Mental health service providers have acknowledged their own problematic practice in relation to particular racial groups – although the role of institutionally based ‘witting’ or ‘unwitting’ racial prejudice (in the 1999 Macpherson Report sense of the term) has been downplayed. Mental health services have also responded to claims of racial bias by making reference to their use of a ‘colour-blind’ approach (Bhavnani, et al, 2005). However, such an approach has been criticised for its essentially based assumptions, which continue to view particular racial categories as genetically or culturally ‘deficient’ (Ahmad, 1996).
More recently, mental health services have sought to improve race equality via more formal means, such as race equality policy (see Department of Health, 2005). The Mental Health Act 1983 (as amended 2007), which was produced in accordance with the duties arising from section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, includes a number of measures that seek to ensure that people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds are not adversely affected or racially discriminated against when using mental health services.