Search

Pre-sentence reports (PSRs) provide important information about an individual's background and circumstances to assist judicial officers in the sentencing process. The present study analyzed PSRs for 63 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people sentenced by either an Indigenous sentencing court or a mainstream court in the Australian State of Victoria. Using natural language processing techniques, our analyses revealed few differences between PSRs conducted for each court. However, PSRs were found to predominantly feature key words that are risk-based, with mainstream court PSRs more negatively worded than the Indigenous sentencing court's PSRs. This may have been due to the inclusion of results from a risk and need assessment tool. Pro-social factors did comprise more than one third of extracted keywords, although the number of strength-based culture-related keywords, in particular, was low across PSRs in both courts. It is possible that courts may not be receiving all the information needed to promote individualized justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adolescent females who have engaged in severe and/or chronic offending are an understudied population internationally. The literature on female offending pathways has indeed advanced, and there is a better understanding of how female offending behaviours manifest and how correctional agencies should be responding. However, much of the existing research has focused on the risk factors and retrospective biographical narratives of adult female offenders. The present study focused on thematically exploring the self-reported life experiences and offending pathways of 36 detained adolescent females. Findings identified multiple themes including disconnection from education, early care-giver disruption/family separation, personal and family mental health problems, poly-substance abuse, anti-social peers, victimisation and anger problems. The study identifies that early family disruption is an important factor that may contribute to later offending behaviour and other negative life events. Prevention efforts should begin with the family when it comes to high-risk young females. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 (HCR-20) is utilised internationally to assess an individual's risk for violence. Despite being widely administered in Australian correctional and forensic populations, the predictive validity of the HCR-20 instrument has never been explored in Australian settings. This retrospective study investigated the predictive validity of the HCR-20 for an Australian cohort of 136 forensic psychiatric patients. Findings support the relationship between the HCR-20 and violent offending post hospital discharge. The HCR-20 Total, Historical, and Risk Management scales shared moderate to large positive correlations with several reconviction categories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Early estimates point to higher rates of cognitive impairment among Indigenous Australians in custody compared to non-Indigenous Australians. This study sought to examine the prevalence of cognitive impairment in a representative sample of Indigenous offenders from Victorian prisons. Differences in mental illness prevalence, offending history and post-release recidivism were explored by presence of cognitive impairment. Results revealed an over-representation of cognitively impaired prisoners in the sample and a large minority with concomitant mental illness or disability. Cognitively impaired prisoners were more likely to re-offend, were younger at first offence, and had greater numbers of prior offences. Findings signal the need for culturally themed disability assistance and diversionary options at all levels of the criminal justice system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Forensic mental health practitioners are frequently asked to estimate the risk of future violence. Legal decisions concerning the sentencing, management and disposition of offenders often rely on the advice of such testimony. The burgeoning use of violence risk instruments in these settings undoubtedly injects a level of scientific rigour into forensic evaluations for courts and tribunals. Yet scrutiny of the inherent limitations of both risk instruments and the inferences and formulations drawn from them are often veiled by the discipline's endorsement for such approaches. Misconceptions about the validity and dependability of present-day risk assessments and expert infallibility persist. The furtive influences that shape both the (mis)interpretation and miscommunication of risk instruments in legal settings necessitate discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]