This PhD study examines how people who are intellectually impaired are processed within the criminal justice system. In this context it analyses the understanding of intellectual disabilities, criminal justice decision-making processes, and the constructon of crime and punishment by professionals involved in criminal justice. Despite significant changes in mental health legislation and greater awareness by professionals of issues around intellectually disabled offenders, previous research has demonstrated that this population remains disadvantaged when coming into contact with the criminal justice system. The study focuses on how the criminal justice system maintains its traditional way of operating when engaging with people who are impaired in their intellectual capacities and who, therefore, often have difficulties in processing information and understanding complex situations. The study draws on qualitative data generated through thirty five unstructured interviews with custody sergeants, forensic examiners, prosecutors, magistrates, judges and probation officers from three regions in the North West of England: Cheshire, Merseyside and Greater Manchester. Through those interviews, the provision of support to alleged offenders is examined and the process of legal representation evaluated. By analysing decision-making processes around vulnerable defendants, two conflicting views that influence cimrinal justice professionals in their strategic behaviour were identified: protecting offenders' rights and protecting the public from criminal behaviour. It is argued that the criminal justice system draws its normative and enforcement powers from a 'discourse of truth' that concentrates on capacity and intent. Defendants who are classified as vulnerable because of impaired intellectual functioning whereby capacity to reason and intellectual disability are functionally separated. This way, an alleged offender's vulnerability becomes a manageable object within the criminal justice system and is integrated into a person's risk management. The disjointed discourse around intellectual disabilities increases the risk that people with an impaired level of intellectual functioning become drawn into the mainstream criminal justice system and, therefore, further compromises the empowerment and social inclusion of this population.

The purpose of this thesis is to examine how religiosity affects both public attitudes about the importance of severe punishments (as a characteristic of democracy) and public confidence in the police and the justice system. This study also examines the socio-demographic (e.g., age, gender, education) factors that influence public perceptions about punishment and confidence in criminal justice institutions. In doing so, this study compares two countries that are both religious and democratic: Turkey and the United States. The current study employs data from Wave 5 (2005-2008) of the World Values Survey (WVS). The U.S. data is based on a sample of 1,249 respondents who participated in face-toace interviews in 2006. The Turkish data is based on a sample of 1,346 respondents who participated in face-toace interviews in 2007. Analyses were conducted using the SPSS 21 software program.

This research utilised a range of deterministic and stochastic analyses to establish whether Queensland's juvenile justice system processes Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young male offenders differently. The impetus for this research stemmed from the continued high rates of Aboriginal over-representation within Australia's criminal justice system, despite diversionary measures to reduce such over-representation, and a commitment by the Queensland Government to reduce by 50% the number of Aboriginal peoples in custody by the year 2011. There are two competing hypotheses concerning the cause of this over-representation, (i) external factors such as socioeconomic disadvantage, unemployment or substance abuse, or (ii) systemic disparity within the criminal justice system. For this research, disparity is defined as the unacceptable use of discrimination; discrimination can be appropriate if it is used to define or enhance a situation, such as discriminating between offenders who are recidivists and those who are first time offenders. The inappropriate use of discrimination occurs for example, when harsher sentences are issued to offenders based on non-legal factors such as race or gender. Systemic disparity is therefore used here to represent the inappropriate use of discrimination against an offender by the criminal justice system. The second hypothesis, one of systemic disparity, provided the framework for this research, which posed the following primary question: Is there quantifiable evidence to support the existence of disparity acting against young male Aboriginal offenders within Queensland's juvenile justice system? Two separate but complementary studies were designed to address this issue: the pathways study and the trajectory study. The pathways study utilised 20,648 finalised appearances for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young male offenders in Queensland's juvenile courts, during 1999 to 2003. Three custodial decision-making stages (police custody, remand, and sentencing) were examined and two questions initially posed: Does the custodial decision made at one stage of the juvenile justice system impact on a subsequent custodial decision-making stage? Does criminal history, Aboriginal status, offence type or an interaction of these factors significantly influence the probability of (i) detention in police custody (ii) court remand (iii) a custodial order at sentencing? It was recognised that other legally relevant factors such as family structure and stability, school attendance and community ties might also influence these custodial decisions; however, for the purposes of this research it was not possible to include these variables in the analyses. Controlling for criminal history, findings from logistic regression analyses indicated that being detained in police custody increased the odds of being remanded into custody, and being remanded into custody increased the odds of a custodial order. Whilst Aboriginal status was not a consistent factor at any of these three custodial stages, there was clear evidence of disparity acting against the young male Aboriginal offender, particularly early in their criminal career. To examine these disparities further, these three custodial stages were modeled as eight processing pathways: four of which resulted in a custodial order and four in a noncustodial order. Using this processing model, a third question was posed: Do young Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal male offenders have different custodial pathways? Findings indicated that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young male offenders were in general, processed along similar custodial pathways that did not include police custody, remand or a custodial order. However, young male Aboriginal offenders were less likely than equivalent non-Aboriginal offenders to have been processed along this pathway and more likely to be processed along the pathways that included remand. It was found that young offenders with a chronic criminal history were more likely to be processed along these remand pathways, and Aboriginal offenders were more likely to have a chronic criminal history than non-Aboriginal offenders; there was clear evidence of disparity at specific custodial stages of the system. In addition, as young male Aboriginal offenders progressed deeper into the system there was evidence of cumulative disparity, particularly along the remand pathways, meaning that the probability of being in custody increases as the offender progresses from one custodial stage to the next custodial stage. Given the existence of disparity, acting within the juvenile justice system and against the young male Aboriginal offender, it was important to formulate viable solutions to such disparity, particularly in light of the Queensland government's commitment to reduce Aboriginal offenders in custody by 50%. Deterministic analyses and computer simulations were used to test the viability of various reduction scenarios suggested by the data. Despite in some instances, different results from the deterministic analyses and the computer simulations, overall findings indicated that to reduce custodial disparity whether at the remand stage, the custodial order stage, or in custody overall (the summation of police custody, remand and custodial orders) that reducing remand, regardless of whether the young offender had been in police custody or not, was the best overall solution. The trajectory study built on the findings of the pathways study, which had identified criminal history as an important factor in the processing pathways of young male Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders. Using the semi-parametric group based method, the criminal trajectories of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young male offenders in Queensland were modeled. These trajectories were based on the finalised appearances of two cohorts of young offenders aged 10 to 17 years of age: those born in 1983 and 1984 and who had turned 18 years of age in 2001 and 2002 respectively. All of these young male offenders had entered the adult system when they turned 17 years of age, and this data provided their complete juvenile history in Queensland. Prior analyses using this method had not considered Aboriginal status or race as a determining factor in these trajectory models, nor had these models been validated either internally or externally in published works. For this research, internal validity was considered as the correct classification of offenders into trajectory groups, and external validity as the ability to reproduce these results in a second or subsequent sample of juvenile offenders. Two questions were therefore posed in the trajectory study: Do young Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal male offenders have different criminal trajectories? Can the predicted model(s) be validated, both internally and externally? Initial findings indicated that the optimal trajectory models selected on prior knowledge and the Bayesian Information Criterion did not validate internally. This finding brought into question the trajectory results of other published works that had not internally validated their models. The models finally selected as optimal indicated that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young male offenders did not have a common criminal trajectory and could not be modeled as one population. Both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young offenders were modeled by a low-frequency group, a late-onset group, and a chronic trajectory group. However, the young male Aboriginal offender was more likely than the non-Aboriginal to have been in the chronic or the late onset group and less likely to have been in the lowfrequency group. External validation utilised an innovative but simple method that utilised all of the data in the modeling process along with a sample of this same data for validation purposes: 10% of the criminal profiles, which were characteristic of the trajectory groups, and a further 5% of randomly selected profiles were chosen for validation. All of the characteristic profiles, but only 50% of the randomly selected profiles were validated, and of the latter, the majority not validated was in the late-onset group. In total, 79.2% of the Aboriginal trajectories and 85.6% of the non-Aboriginal criminal trajectories were correctly externally validated. Overall, there are two important implications from this research for government. First, even though young male Aboriginal offenders are more likely to have a chronic criminal history than non-Aboriginal offenders, this factor does not account for all of the observed disparity acting against the young Aboriginal offender within Queensland's juvenile justice system: there is evidence of disparity within the system that is unaccounted for by either offence type or criminal history. Second, given this chronic criminal history, systemic solutions to systemic disparity whilst viable, will not ultimately resolve this problem: they are only short-term measures at the end of a very long justice system. Longer-term solutions are needed to address external factors such as socio-economic disadvantage, unemployment and substance abuse in Aboriginal communities, before these young people are exposed to the system. Continuing to concentrate on systemic solutions, to such an entrenched problem as Aboriginal overrepresentation and disparity, is a misdirection of system resources and is inconsistent with social justice.

The purpose of the research was to investigate the difference in attributions of offenders and magistrates about the factors that led to offending behaviour. Difference in beliefs between offenders and magistrates, about seriousness of some common offences and factors believed to be motives for offending, justification of offending and neutralisation of responsibility for offending were also investigated. The effect that differences in attributions between offenders and magistrates and how these influence the way in which offenders are dealt with in the criminal justice system was investigated. The attitude of criminal justice system professionals, and magistrates towards offenders was also investigated to find out if they affect court sentencing decisions, and the treatment and punishment imposed in an attempt to reduce offending. My research has shown, that offenders and magistrates hold significantly different attributions about the factors that influence people to offend, and about offence seriousness. Offenders and magistrates also hold significantly different beliefs about motives for offending, justification of offending and neutralisation of responsibility for offending. The UK Government Crime Reduction Policy since 1997, has been strongly related to the ‘What Works’ approach. This has influenced sentencing policy and the treatment of offenders. A major strand of the policy has been the introduction and implementation of the What Works’ approach and the use of Cognitive Behavioural Accredited Programmes within the Probation Service and Prison Service to change the behaviour of offenders and reduce recividism (Harper and Chitty 2005). Based on my research findings recommendations are made in the final chapter of the thesis for modifications to the present approach, and the treatment of offenders.

No description available.

Kandidatuppsatsen består av en kvalitativ forskningsstudie med grounded theory som metod. Syftet är att undersöka vilka faktorer som får betydelse i den rättsliga bedömningen och synliggöra föreställningar om kvinnliga brottsoffer och manliga brottsutövare som existerar det svenska rättssystemet ur ett genusrättsvetenskapligt perspektiv. I studien användes trettiofem våldtäktsdomar och genomförandet av analysen inleddes med att domarna granskades noggrant för att upptäcka upprepande mönster i materialet. Vidare strukturerades texterna för att identifiera betydelsefulla stycken, vilket bildade kategorier. Det mest framträdande i resultatet som redovisas är hur trovärdighet får betydelse genom hela den rättsliga processen. Kategorierna är målsägandens berättelse i domen, tilltalades berättelse i domen, betydande faktorer i rättens bedömning av brottsoffer och brottsutövare, samt betydande faktorer i rättens bedömning av bevisföring. Resultatet visar på att föreställningar om våldtäkter i samhället även får inflytande i den rättsliga processen. Vidare visar studien på att det råder ojämlika maktrelationer i rättssystemet för kvinnliga brottsoffer och manliga brottsutövare. / This bachelor thesis comprise on a qualitative research study using grounded theory as method. The purpose is to examine factors influencing the jurors judgement in rape cases and conceptions about female victims and male culprit that exists in the swedish justice system, using a gender perspective based on legal science. The study consists thirty-five rape cases carefully analyzed to discover repeated patterns in the data. Furthermore the data was structured using grounded theory to identify important pieces, which finally generated in four categories. Distinctive in our results was the importance of credibility in the legal process. The categories is the narrative of the plaintiff in the verdict, the narrative of the accused in the verdict, substantial factors in the court's judgement of evidence and substantial factors in the court’s judgement of the victim and the accused. The results of the study shows that rape myths in the society influences the jurors judgement in the legal process. Finally the study also shows a justice system of unequal power relationships between the female victim and the male culprit.

Doctor Legum - LLD / The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Right (the Court) is the most recent of the three regional Human Rights Bodies. Envisioned by the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right, its structures was not planned until the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) promulgated a protocol for its creation in 1998. The Court complements the protective mandate of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (‘The Commission’) and the Court has the competence to take final and binding decisions on human rights violations. Unlike its European and inter-American versions where their courts are integral parts of the cardinal instrument of the system ab initio, the establishment of the African Court was merely an afterthought. At the initial, protection of rights rested solely with the Commission upon African justice system which emphasises reconciliation as it is non-confrontational method of settlements of. The Commission is a quasi-judicial body modelled after the United Nations Human Right Committee without binding powers and with only limited functions covering examination of State reports, communications alleging violations and interpreting the Charter at the request of a State, the OAU or any organisation recognised by the OAU. The thesis answers the question whether the adoption of the African Court means that the African model of enforcing human rights has failed or whether having the Court constitute a concession to the triumph of the western model of law enforcement. The imperative of the 30th Ordinary Session of the OAU in 1994 where the creation of an African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights was viewed as the best way of protecting human rights across the region would be treated. The relevance of such an examination is highlighted by the fact that the African Charter did not make any provision for the establishment of a Court to enforce the rights guaranteed thereunder. If we are to assume that justice by reconciliation has failed and should be replaced by or complimented with justice by adjudication as the primary means of conflict resolution, what guarantees are there that the latter form of justice will not also fail? This thesis therefore will critically evaluate the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights and assessed its potential impact on the African human rights system. It will also probe the power of the Court and see whether a clear and mutually reinforcing division of labour between it and the African Commission can be developed to promote and protect human rights on the continent. This research brings to focus an area that requires attention if the African human rights regime is to be effective. It put to test the criticism against the African Charter and the Protocol to the African Charter on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights and also identified the present existing flaws in the African regional system. Furthermore, it ascertained whether or not, given the availability of other options, a regional Court is, in fact, the ideal mechanism for the protection of human rights in Africa.

The juvenile justice system was established as a result of an unprecedented movement pioneered by the child savers. Child savers strived to protect America's children from physical and moral harm. Since the juvenile justice system's inception, research has focused extensively on the effectiveness of the juvenile system. Numerous studies have observed the perceptions of the general public, juvenile probation officers, and juvenile correctional staff regarding the juvenile justice system. The current study examined actual participants in the juvenile justice system to assess their opinions of the system that was designed to serve, protect, and rehabilitate them into active members of society. A survey was conducted with juvenile offenders who had been placed on court mandated juvenile probation, and their responses were analyzed and compared with previous research regarding the effectiveness of the juvenile justice system.

Interview strategies applied in adult criminal justice settings focus on the interviewer and concentrate on obtaining information for the courts, while simultaneously neglecting a forensic understanding of interviewees, including the interviewee's decision-making and behavioral health impairments. As a consequence, there is a deficiency of evidence-based research regarding interview practices with persons diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). Using social control and neutralization theories as the foundation, the purpose of this case study of a single justice system in the United States was to better understand the perspectives and experiences of ASPD diagnosed inmates (n =5) compared to incarcerated participants without any mental health diagnosis (n =5) regarding willingness to cooperate with the interviewer. Interview data were triangulated with the Gudjonsson Confession Questionnaire – Revised. Data were inductively coded and then subjected to a thematic analysis procedure. Results indicate that external and internal pressures, intoxication, perception of proof, involvement of third parties, and/or a lack of insight into diagnostic features of ASPD influenced decisions to cooperate with an interviewer, thereby impacting the quality of interview results. The positive social change implications of this study include recommendations to criminal justice systems to explore holistic interview strategies that may improve interview outcomes. Adhering to this recommendation may improve the quality of interviews and ensure that justice system objectives related to truthfulness and accuracy are enhanced as well as improve mental health outcomes of criminal offenders.

Since the mid-1980s, California's juvenile justice system has been struggling to address two phenomena: crossover youth and the policy of dual jurisdiction. Crossover youth are children who are simultaneously involved in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems; in conjunction, the policy of dual jurisdiction is a policy that permits juvenile courts to assume collaborative jurisdiction over crossover youth's child welfare and juvenile justice cases. Between 1989 and 2004, the system's actors adhered to California Welfare & Institutions Code (WIC) § 241.1, which prohibited the policy of dual jurisdiction. As a result, the system's actors assigned crossover youth to either the child welfare or juvenile justice system, and these children did not receive proper treatment. However, in January 2005, the California state legislature amended WIC § 241.1 to incorporate Section (e), which is also known as the policy of dual jurisdiction. Subsequently, the system's actors now have the option to assign crossover youth to both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems, and these children can receive holistic services from both systems. Currently, approximately two southern Californian counties implement the policy of dual jurisdiction. This thesis argues that the implementation of dual jurisdiction is necessary as it serves in the best interests of crossover youth by addressing the issue of disproportionate minority contact, decreasing the rates of juvenile recidivism, and increasing the availability of rehabilitative services. This thesis also uses preliminary field research to demonstrate the policy of dual jurisdiction's benefits and to encourage more counties to adopt this policy.