Search

This thesis examines the direct and indirect effects of the curtailment of the right of silence, (ss34-38 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994), and the pre-trial disclosure regime created by Part 1 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. The effects are explored through critiques of the debates surrounding the introduction of the Acts, associated research, analyses of the case law and a qualitative study of how criminal justice practitioners in one region of England view the provisions. It demonstrates the flaws, in both principle and practice, of the rhetoric of `re-balancing' a system tipped too far in favour of `criminals' that was deployed in support of these measures and subsequent initiatives that encroach further upon the rights of the accused. Whilst the direct effects of these Acts have been limited by the small number of cases to which they apply, it is argued that their insidious effects go beyond mere procedural change and have distorted the adversarial nature of the criminal justice system. Both Statutes have imposed quasi-inquisitorial expectations upon the defence, the results of which, the prosecution is entitled to deploy in an adversarial contest. The provisions undermine many of the protections guaranteeing suspects a fair trial, in particular legal advice at the police station, in such a way as to be almost immune from formal challenge. Rather than `re-balancing', the process may be more appropriately characterised as a series of crude "trade-offs" which have compromised the fundamental rights of the defendant and vitiated the fairness of proceedings.

This thesis provides an exploration into the extent to which different types of care environment are criminogenic. It investigates: kinship; foster; and residential care, from the perspectives of care leavers, members of the Leaving Care Team [LCT] and carers. The research looks at experiences: before; during; and after care, with quantitative risk assessment and semi structured interviews. The overall aim of this thesis is to evaluate the extent to which different types of care environments have the propensity to be criminogenic and highlight what can be changed to improve life chances of looked after children, free from offending. In order to do so, the following research questions were central: are care environments criminogenic?; to what extent does the Risk and Protective Factors Paradigm [RPFP] successfully measure this?;to what extent does attachment to significant others help answer this question?; and what, if anything, can be done to reduce criminogenic risk in care?The main findings within the risk assessments showed residential placements to be the most criminogenic, with the highest increase of risk ‘during care’ and reduction after care. Foster placements had constant risk levels, showing concerns with the ability of foster care to reduce risk. With kinship placements being seen as the least criminogenic. All participant groups, showed Living arrangements, Emotional/Mental Health and Family/Personal Relationships to be the biggest influence to offending. The central findings from the semi structured interviews were as follows: attachment underpins the experience of risk; Clear differences within institutional versus family settings, with long term foster care offering same outcomes as kinship; having ‘no one to let down’ was the most cited reason for offending. The recommendations were as follows: Recommendations for research: urgent prospective longitudinal studies focused on attachment in care and its consequences on risk and offending. Recommendations for practitioners: focus on attachment; listen to the cared-for and carers more closely and consistently. Recommendations for policy makers: invest in and plan for high quality care for all placements; transform residential care, moving away from authoritarian parenting practices; have a 'care-revolution' in terms of attachment-focussed training, monitoring and practice; mainstream family preservation/early intervention programmes (alternatives to care) and massively recruit foster- and kin-carers.

Death row is a space across the United States that continues to expand, not only in numbers, but in the length of time inmates spend confined there. Fewer and fewer inmates are executed and death row is now increasingly the only punishment of capital convicts. This thesis examines the retributive and punitive treatment of death-sentenced offenders within that space and, by viewing that form of imprisonment as part of a communication process, it assesses the contribution it makes to the death penalty more generally in the USA to argue that death row imprisonment is crucial in sustaining the distinction of capital offenders, and the death penalty itself.Just as death row receives images from wider culture, it simultaneously generates images that complement and validate those it receives, of death sentenced offenders as dangerous monsters. These images, of offenders who require punitive detention, align with the dominant supportive rationale of capital punishment, retribution, and provide a basis for continued death penalty support in an era of declining executions.In the “hidden world” of death row, prisoners are left to be abused, mistreated, and denied privileges and opportunities available to other prisoners. The capital offender is presented by his death row incarceration as different from all other offenders serving other sentences, even life without parole. Death row incarceration communicates the worth and status of the condemned, presenting him as a dangerous, and dehumanised other, who needs to be securely detained, and restricted. Thus death row validates and justifies the cultural needs of capital punishment. Just as wider culture, including, specifically, the legal community, dictates a requirement for punitive detention, death row corroborates that image with its own in a self-affirming loop. Death row is therefore functional beyond the mere holding of offenders, it affirms cultural descriptions of the condemned and thus justifies, and provides support for, the very continuation of capital punishment itself.