Are We There Yet? Screening Processes for Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in Jail Settings

2009 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Scheyett ◽  
Jennie Vaughn ◽  
Melissa Taylor ◽  
Susan Parish
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Developmental Disabilities ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Early Identification ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Intellectual And Developmental Disabilities ◽  
Telephone Interviews ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Early identification of intellectual and developmental disabilities in persons in the criminal justice system is essential to protect their rights during arrest and trial, ensure safety when incarcerated, and maximize the opportunities to receive services while incarcerated and postrelease. Using telephone interviews of jail administrators (N = 80) in 1 state, this study examined how people with intellectual and developmental disabilities were identified in jails. Findings indicated that administrators varied widely in awareness of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in their jails. Few jails (6%) used formal screening instruments for intellectual and developmental disabilities, others relied on officer observation and self-report (53%), and some provided no screening at all; in addition, officers received little training in this regard. Findings suggest that few jails are operationalizing best-practice screening processes for intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Mandatory Compensation Orders for Crime Victims and the Rhetoric of Restorative Justice

2003 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Warner ◽  
Jenny Gawlik
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Public Support ◽  
Crime Victims ◽  
Property Damage ◽  
Victims Of Crime ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Legislative Measures

Increased recognition of the need for victims of crime to be integrated into the criminal justice system and to receive adequate reparation has led, in a number of jurisdictions, to legislative measures to encourage the greater use of compensation orders. The Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas) (which came into force on 1 August 1998) went further and made compensation orders compulsory for property damage or loss resulting from certain crimes. This article shows that this measure has failed victims and argues that they have been used in the service of other ends. Mandatory compensation orders are a token gesture repackaged as restorative justice to gain public support for the administration of the criminal justice system.Ways in which compensation orders could be made more effective and the possibilities of accommodating restorative compensation into a conventional criminal justice system are explored.

Leniency for Lethal Ladies: Using the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model to Examine Gender-Based Sentencing Disparities

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 319-343
Author(s):  
Emma E. Fridel
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Gender Bias ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Female Offenders ◽  
Differential Treatment ◽  
Sentencing Decisions ◽  
Actor Partner Interdependence Model ◽  
Gender Based ◽  
To Receive

Research has shown that female offenders typically receive differential treatment in the criminal justice system in comparison to their male counterparts, even for extreme crimes like murder. This study compares the criminal sentences of 300 homicide offenders who killed at least two victims with a single co-offender (150 pairs) within their dyads using the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM) to determine if gender has an effect on leniency for even the most extreme crimes. Women were less likely to receive the harshest possible punishment, regardless of their partner’s gender. These findings provide support for the female leniency effect, suggesting that gender bias continues to influence sentencing decisions for homicide.

Through the Looking Glass: Taking Stock of Offender Reentry

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melinda D. Schlager
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Common Sense ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Offender Reentry ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Solution Focused ◽  
Work Done ◽  
Looking Glass

Offender reentry has been part of the fabric of the criminal justice system since the first prison opened its doors and people who went in the front door were, at some point, released. Traditionally, the research on offender reentry has either supported best practice by determining what specific individual-level programming “works” or “doesn’t work” or it has assessed the success of programs in terms of their ability to reduce recidivism. And while we may have moved the dial in the last 50 years with respect to what we know about individual-level offender reentry attributes, there is no effective overarching narrative to explain the offender reentry phenomenon. Overwhelmingly, practitioners and academics in the criminal justice system operate within a paradigm that assesses and evaluates everything using risk. Unfortunately, a risk- or deficit-focused approach to viewing offender reentry severely limits our ability to think differently about the problem. However, if we employ a paradigm for offender reentry that focuses less on problems and more on strengths, different outcomes are possible. Work done in social work that promotes “strengths-based, solution-focused, capacity building, asset creating, motivation enhancing” empowerment models that accentuate the positive serves as an exemplar for us to use in criminal justice when discussing offender reentry. The three strengths-based principles adapted to offender reentry and discussed here are as follows: Officer–offender relationships that emphasize collaboration will promote law-abiding, prosocial behavior; offenders who are empowered will be more likely to seek to change; and cooperation from the community is key to successful offender reentry. Fiscal, political, and common sense reasons for using a strengths-based approach to offender reentry are discussed.

The Color of Victimology

2019 ◽  
pp. 529-537
Author(s):  
Kyrie Hernandezpeterson
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Crime Victimization ◽  
Assistance Programs ◽  
High Profile ◽  
Victim Assistance ◽  
The Media ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Emotional Effects

Victims are the center of the criminal justice system. However, negative treatment by any service provider discourages individuals from taking advantage of the services being offered to victims through various organizations in their respective communities. The study of victims (victimology) is informative on the physical, psychological, and emotional effects crimes have on victims. Victim assistance programs and resources have substantially grown over the years in an effort to improve protection to all and assist in pursuing proper justice for victims and those suffering from victimization. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and Uniform Crime Report (UCR) are used to gather statistics to further victim research. High profile cases in the media have led to the criminal justice system being deemed biased. Statistics do not substantiate racial discrimination in victimology or in the criminal justice system. There are instances of discrimination in select cases, but as a whole, the criminal justice system should not be viewed as discriminative. The focus should be placed on refining victim assistance programs and being creative in providing the proper resources victims need to receive the justice they deserve and the care and help they need.

Research Note: How Accurate are Arrestees' Self-Reports of Their Criminal Justice Histories?

2005 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce D. Johnson ◽  
Angela Taylor ◽  
Andrew Golub
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Research Note ◽  
Self Report ◽  
State Agency ◽  
Relative Importance ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Criminal Histories ◽  
Self Reports

This research note addresses the accuracy of arrestees' self-reports of contacts with the criminal justice system as a means of exploring the relative importance of various sources of inaccurate responding. Erroneous self-report of sensitive behaviors has been linked to deception, memory problems, and faulty criterion measures, among other things. However, the existent literature provides limited guidance for investigating the relative importance of these factors in a given study. Further, variations in the amount and types of inaccuracy cannot be distinguished by commonly used summary agreement statistics, such as kappa. These issues were examined using data from the Policing Project, a National Institute of Justice-funded research study designed to explore new means of evaluating police behavior. The project interviewed 892 New York City arrestees during the second half of 1999. Subjects were asked about several forms of criminal justice system contact, and gave informed consent for researchers to obtain their official criminal histories, which were acquired from the state agency as an anonymous data set. A key finding was that the accuracy of arrestee self-reports compared to official criminal histories varied according to specific measures. Agreement regarding arrest in the prior six months was substantial, but other measures were less accurate. Overreporting was about equal to underreporting of criminal justice contacts across several measures. We conclude that arrestee self-reports continue to be valuable for criminological research. While arrestee self-reports may lack the precision and accuracy that criminal justice practitioners might prefer, the limitations of official records contribute substantially to inaccuracies between self-reports and criminal histories.

Drug treatment outcomes in the criminal justice system: What non-self-report measures of outcome can tell us

2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Powell ◽  
Marilyn Christie ◽  
John Bankart ◽  
Deborah Bamber ◽  
Ira Unell
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Drug Treatment ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Treatment Outcomes ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Drug Treatment Outcomes
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document