Outcomes and considerations for the broader public as well as partner organisations Both historically and currently there is a background of partner organisations working with the CJS around offender management and reintegration (i.e., NACRO, Circles UK, Howard League). However, given the current austerity cuts, the rehabilitative revolution and greater devolvement of state powers through the Big Society these organisations need to be careful not to take on responsibilities which are outside of their jurisdictions. There are a number of potential scenarios that could play out for partner organisations, both old and new, in regard to the management of sexual abusers against children in the current climate; (1) these groups could assist victims, offenders, associated people and communities in understanding as well as responding to child sexual abuse; (2) these groups could replace the work done by existing CJS agencies in regard to child sexual abuse; or (3) these groups could become involved in partnership working with CJS agencies. All of which fit in with the coalition’s Big Society, increased partnership and public involvement manifesto. The most likely scenario seems to be that these groups would continue to be involved in partnership working with CJS agencies, as they or others have done historically, helping to respond to sexual abuse at a grass roots level; but with the caveat of possibly taking on more responsibility and therefore having more accountability. These organisations, whether new or historical partners, should be engaging with;
One key point to emerge from the analysis is that policy interventions need to engage with young people at a very early age. The average age of onset of offending among prolific offenders was 12.4 years. This represents the mid-point across a range of variation, and implies that for some members of the sample their onset of offending was at ten or earlier. The OCJS identifies anti-social behaviour as a precursor to more frequent offending and/or drug use for some young people. In some cases, interventions targeting young people involved in anti-social behaviour may help to reduce the likelihood of an individual following an offending trajectory. But the OCJS also shows that some types of anti-social behaviour are not exclusively found among the very young: some patterns appeared to change little from mid-teens to mid-twenties. In accordance with previous findings, this analysis identified family breakdown, poor or inconsistent parenting and truancy and exclusion from school as risk factors for offending and/or drug use. Some of these factors, such as family breakdown, may be causal factors while others, such as truancy and exclusion, are more likely to be indicators of an underlying anti-social personality. The most recent policy initiatives, as outlined in the Youth Crime Action Plan published in July 2008, already emphasise early intervention with families in which young people are at risk of an escalating pattern of offending and drug use. Family Intervention Projects (FIPS) are being expanded from their original emphasis on anti- social behaviour to a youth-crime programme that will soon be available in every local authority across England and Wales; there will also be a child poverty version of FIPS. Children and young people excluded from school are already likely to be involved in prompt and wide-ranging assessments of their situation.
T h e re are risk factors which influence the development of criminal careers through aff e c t i n g the onset of offendingbehaviour, persistence of offending over time and desistance fro m criminal activity (see Farrington, 1997). Whilst there is some evidence to suggest a causal relation between some of these risk factors and offendingbehaviour, there is also evidence to suggest indirect links and, in many cases, the nature of the relation is as yet unpro v e n . As static risk factors, for example criminal history, cannot be altered, it is through changing the dynamic risk factors, for example education, employment and substance misuse, that f u t u re offending can be reduced (see Bonta, 1996 cited in Benda et al., 2001). As a result, programmes or interventions that seek to reduce re - o ffending directly target dynamic risk factors (Andrews & Bonta, 1998; Hanson & Harris, 2000; Hoge, 1999 cited in Benda et al., 2001). Taylor (1999) concluded that although criminal history was a stro n g p redictor of reconviction, this was because it acted as a proxy for social and behavioural p roblems. McGuire's (2002a) summary of meta-analytic reviews concluded that off e n d e r s often have multiple problems and criminogenic needs and those with many are most likely to re - o ffend. There f o re, interventions that tackle a range of problems will be more eff e c t i v e than those that target a single problem and offenders may need additional practical s u p p o rt/training in relation to accommodation, education, and employment.
stratified random sample of individuals in English and Welsh households based on postcode districts and quarter-sectors as the primary sampling units (PSUs), stratified by police force area (PFA), region and district (based on population density and occupational profile) (Phelps, Maxwell, Anderson, Pickering & Tait, 2006). Post-hoc weighting is also applied to correct for differences in probability of selection, non-response and to match the makeup of population (young persons in England and Wales) 3 . Whilst the sampling strategy outlined is similar in design to other national household surveys, such as the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) it does not capture those in communal establishments (e.g. defence or educational establishments, hotels, hostels or guest houses, hospitals or residential homes). For example, homeless people, more serious offenders who are incarcerated in prison or young offenders institutes, or those with drug and alcohol problems that may be in hospital or care. However, studying a non-clinical and non-custodial sample is beneficial as it allows for assessment of general population behaviour and provides information on ‘normative’ behaviour and can thus help identify those at risk of violent offending in the general population.
Moffitt (1993; see also Moffitt et al. 2002) proposed a taxonomy of offending that distinguishes adolescence- limited, life-course persistent offenders and abstainers. The distinction is a controversial one. Sampson and Laub have been highly critical on the basis of very long-term criminal careers research, tracking a sample of males born before the second world war, who had initially been followed by the Gluecks from age 10–17, until they reach 70. Sampson and Laub find patterns of episodic offend- ing and near-universal desistance at some point (Samp- son and Laub 2004, 2005; Laub and Sampson 2003). Nevertheless, DeLisi and Piquero report, ‘voluminous empirical support’ for it (DeLisi and Piquero 2011: 292). Moffitt was writing in the early 1990s when it appeared to be a universal truth that the majority of young persons (mainly young men) committed one or a small number of crimes in their teens then quickly desisted, and con- stituted the category of adolescence-limited offending. In other words abstainers seemed rare. More recent research in the United States found continuing low levels of abstention: across two successive self-report surveys of males and females each covering the previous 12 months, only 13.56 per cent of adolescents admitted no offences or antisocial behaviour (Barnes et al. 2011).
The 2006 OffendingCrime and Justice Survey (Home Office) is a general population household survey which questions young people aged 10 to 25 about their offendingbehaviour as well as alcohol and drug consumption using (audio) computer assisted interviewing (CASI) 2 . Although the 2006 data is a few years old, this survey coincides within the period associated with the recent increased use of cocaine amongst young people in England and Wales (see Home Office, 2012) and is currently the most recent source of data on young people’s offending and substance use. The OCJS uses a random probability sample design; namely, a multi-stage stratified random sample of individuals in English and Welsh households based on postcode districts and quarter-sectors as the primary sampling units (PSUs), stratified by police force area (PFA), region and district (based on population density and occupational profile) (Phelps, Maxwell, Anderson, Pickering & Tait, 2006). Post-hoc weighting is also applied to correct for differences in probability of selection, non-response and to match the makeup of population (young persons in England and Wales) 3 . Whilst the sampling strategy outlined is similar in design to other national household surveys, such as the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) it does not capture those in communal establishments (e.g. defence or educational establishments, hotels, hostels or guest houses, hospitals or residential homes). For example, homeless people, more serious offenders who are incarcerated in prison or young offenders institutes, or those with drug and alcohol problems that may be in hospital or care. However, studying a non-clinical and non-custodial sample is beneficial as it allows for assessment of general population behaviour and provides information on ‘normative’ behaviour and can thus help identify those at risk of violent offending in the general population.
Self-report offending surveys, such as the OCJS, are primarily designed to provide a better measure of the extent and nature of offending than can be obtained through official records. Data from the criminal justice agencies only provide a partial measure of offending because many offenders (and offences) are never formally processed. Self-report offending surveys ask people directly about their offending and therefore include offenders and offences that are not dealt with by the criminal justice system. They also enable patterns of offending and the factors associated with different forms of offendingbehaviour to be examined. However, there are some limitations and key methodological issues that need to be considered in interpreting the findings presented in this report. These are described in Box 1.1.
Age-specific arrest rates related to preschool blood lead can explain why crime predictions based on 1990s demographic trends proved inaccurate, and why incarceration and crime both rose prior to 1990 as increased offending by juveniles and young adults more than offset the incapacitation of older offenders. Gun use offers little insight into overall crime trends, but gun homicides did account for most of the 1973-2002 USA murder rate variation. These trends are not inconsistent with the hypothesis that murder is especially affected by severe lead poisoning, but suggest an especially lethal interaction between gun access and severe neurobehavioral damage. This could explain why rural murders fell after 1980 despite easy rural access to guns. The 1990s fall in black juvenile murder arrests coincided with a fall in black youths carrying guns, but blood lead trends could explain why so many black youths stopped carrying guns at the same time.
Much of the criminological focus in recent years has been on high frequency/low tariff offences where the versatility of most offenders’ behaviour has been identified. With these offenders the case for specialisation has been limited although elsewhere (Soothill et al., 2000) we have argued that the conceptualisation of the issue needs further development. In contrast, there has been much less criminological focus on low frequency/high tariff offences. The exception over the past decade has been the increased interest in sexual offending. In relation to other high tariff serious crime, the focus is usually on one type of offence, such as arson (e.g. Soothill et al., 2004) and there is the apparent criminological neglect of many such crimes, such as blackmail or threats to kill. More pertinently, there seems to have been little discussion about possible comparisons and inter-relationships between different types of serious offences. Are those convicted of kidnapping more likely than those convicted of blackmail to go on to be reconvicted for homicide, for example? Similarly, are those convicted of, say, both arson and threats to kill more likely to go on to be convicted of homicide than those convicted of only one type of serious crime? The questions are important ones both for theoretical and practical reasons.
On the other hand, the ‘voluntary consent’ fault line may be difficult to pin down, for instance when teenagers post nude or explicit pictures of themselves on the Internet or engage in other forms of ‘sexting’ (see Lee, Crofts, Salter, Milivojevic and McGovern 2013). Lee and colleagues believe that the legal and semantic conflation of child pornography with voluntary sexting has led to over-criminalisation and a loss of nuanced understandings of risk, harm and consent. Moreover, while it is not a crime for a child to send an explicitly sexual image of themselves, it may be a crime for the receiver to view it, download it or distribute it. The crime of grooming, whereby an adult sexually grooms a child (over the Internet or in real life, something now punishable under both Australian and Swedish law) is a ‘new’ crime that ties in closely with child pornography crimes and with child sexual abuse. However, the paternalistic over-simplification of rendering all forms of sexting criminal diminishes female sexual agency, under the guise of protection. Moreover, relatively harmless forms of exchanges of explicit images could lead to a young person being convicted of a sexual offence with severe consequences (including, in Australia, the risk of ending up on the Sex Offender Register; Lee et al. 2013). In addition, it is worth considering the adverse effects of painting all sexual offences with the same brush; in a quest to depict all sexual acts involving children as equally wrong, the legislator risks obscuring the truly serious crimes. There are degrees of hell, and so there should be in sexual offending regulation.
The 2003 Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (OCJS) was commissioned by the Home Office to measure levels of offending, anti-social and other problem behaviours and drug use among the general household population aged from 10 to 65 in England and Wales. It also measured victimisation among children under the age of 16 1 and collected information about respondents' lifestyle, education and family experiences, and attitudes to crime and the criminal justice system. OCJS interviews were conducted between January and July 2003. Around 12,000 respondents aged from 10 to 65 living in private households in England and Wales were interviewed. Young respondents aged from 10 to 25 and respondents from Black and minority ethnic groups were over sampled to ensure there were sufficient numbers for robust analysis (weighting has been applied to correct for this in the analysis). Further details of the survey design are given in Box 1.4 and Appendix B.
uncovered that an offender is not presently registered with a GP. Yet, from the narratives of the study participants, it is obvious that the importance of working with offenders prior to release and on-release cannot be overemphasised as this has the potential to enable the offender to plan and prepare for their continuity in access to health services in the community. However, it is clear that in practice this does not happen, and from the evidence collated herein, it is safe to posit that offenders do not feel that they get enough support to plan for what will happen after they are released with regards to their health. This underpins the need for a nurse led service aimed at facilitating the continuity in access to healthcare for offenders on release through promoting health in the community and signposting offenders into healthcare providers as required.
Here is an example of what I mean. Prospect theory is a formal model of decision-making under conditions of risk and uncertainty. We have shown how it can be used to determine preference orderings over alternative attack methods. This is our analytically ‘closed’ result, reported in our papers. Our ‘open’ result is potentially much more significant. Prospect theory, like each approach that we have taken, represents a different way of thinking about terrorist or criminal behaviour. This cannot be encompassed in a single reported result in the traditional sense. Rather, results emerge once the theory is connected to practice via the bridge of law enforcement experience and intuition. An investigative team, familiar with a particular type of offender and in the process of an investigation directed towards finding some unknown offender, will recognise an aspect of behaviour reflected in our analytical framework that would otherwise be overlooked. The analytical-theoretical framework and the investigative process must be connected via a bridge constituted of experience and intuition before the most important results can be obtained. Given the continuous evolution of contexts, these results will be dynamic in a way that cannot be captured by a set of results presented once and for all at a particular point in time 26 . Presenting the relevant pieces of theory in a coherent and visualisable framework is our ongoing task.
One way that criminology can account for the enabling and disabling effects of technologies is to conceptualise crime, deviance and justice as increasingly technosocial practices within a digital society. Gere (2002: 12) advocates the utility of digital as a ‘marker of culture’ that ‘encompasses both the artefact and the systems of signification and communication that most clearly demarcate our contemporary way of life from others’. Key to the digital society then, is the recognition of a shift in structures, socio‐cultural practices and lived experience that does not distinguish between the online and offline world. By focusing on the digital, Deuze (2006) contends that researchers can explore the impact of technologies that shape cultural artifacts, arrangements and activities, both online and offline. Extending the disintegration of the boundary between online and offline realities, Baym (2015: 1) notes that the distinguishing features of digital technologies are the manner in which they have transformed how people engage with one another. This enmeshment of the digital and social has also been referred to as the digitalisation of society in which ‘technology is society, and society cannot be understood or represented without its technological tools’ (Castells 1996: 5). By focusing on digital society, over other prefixes such as cyber or virtual, criminologists are prompted to move beyond framing ‘computer’, ‘cyber’ or ‘virtual’ crime and justice as fundamentally distinct from or, indeed, oppositional to ‘non‐technological’ forms of crime and justice. At the same time, encouraging research under the more pervasive concept of digital society draws the criminological imagination towards an exploration of the relational, cultural, affective, political and socio‐structural dimensions of crime and justice that are reproduced, reinstitutionalised and potentially resisted, in both familiar and unfamiliar ways. Indeed, part of our motivation for using digital ‘society’, over other similar and popular suffixes such as ‘age’ or ‘era’, is to deliberately invoke analyses of social inequalities, socio‐cultural practices and socio‐political factors that underpin crime and justice more broadly, and that arguably persist as our lives become increasingly digital. We propose that such a conceptual focus on digital society also opens up several new and rapidly emerging foci for criminological theory and research. Although far from being a comprehensive list, we identify seven avenues for the study of crime, deviance and justice in a digital society, drawing on examples from interdisciplinary research across sociology, cultural and media studies, journalism, policing and surveillance studies, as well as law and criminology.
(2003) 107 Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 73; I P Everall and A LeCouteur, “Firesetting in an Adolescent Boy with Asperger’s Syndrome” (1990) 157 British Journal of Psychiatry 284; G J Simblett and D N Wilson, “Asperger’s Syndrome: Three Cases and a Discussion” (1993) 37 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 85; A H Söderström, “Clinical Neuropsychiatric Symptoms in Perpetrators of Severe Crimes against Persons” (2005) 59 Nordic Journal of Psychiatry 246; J B Barry-Walsh and P E Mullen, “Forensic Aspects of Asperger’s Syndrome” (2004) 15 Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology 96; D Mawson, A Grounds and D Tantam, “Violence and Asperger’s Syndrome: A Case Study” (1985) 147 British Journal of Psychiatry 566; Mukaddes and Topcu, n 9; Murphy, n 9; J A Silva, M M Ferrari and G B Leong, “What Happened to Jeffrey? A Neuropsychiatric Developmental Analysis of Serial Killing Behavior” in Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Volume VIII, 11 February 2002, Atlanta, Colorado Springs, American Academy of Forensic Sciences; J A Silva, M M Ferrari and G B Leong, “The Neuropsychiatric Developmental Analysis of Serial Killer Behavior” in American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Annual Meeting Program 24 October 2002, Newport Beach, California; Bloomfield, Connecticut, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law; J A Silva et al, “The Genesis of Serial Killing Behavior in the Case of Joel Rifkin using the Combined BRACE/NDM Approach” in Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Volume IX, 11 February 2003, Chicago, Colorado Springs, American Academy of Forensic Sciences; S Baron-Cohen, “An Assessment of Violence in a Young Man with Asperger’s Syndrome” (1988) 29 Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines 351; S A Cooper, W N Mohamed and R A Collacott, “Possible Asperger’s Syndrome in a Mentally Handicapped Transvestite Offender” (1993) 37 Journal of Intellectual Disabilities Research 189; I Hall and J Bernal, “Asperger’s Syndrome and Violence” (1995) 166 British Journal of Psychiatry 262; Y Kohn et al, “Aggression and Sexual Offence in Asperger’s Syndrome” (1998) 35 Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences 293; J A Silva, J C Wu and G B Leong, “Neuropsychiatric Developmental Analysis of Sexual Murder” in American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Annual Meeting Program, 16 October 2003, San Antonio; Bloomfield, Connecticut, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
In place of Clarke and Homel’s ‘increasing moral condemnation’ the strategy ‘increasing social condemnation’ is suggested to more precisely capture the concept of public criticism and embarrassment component of shaming. A number of specific techniques for increasing anticipated social condemnation have already been mentioned. There are undoubtedly others. While it addresses the lower end of the ‘crime’ scale (and is possibly even apocryphal), the use of urine-sensitive swimming-pool dyes exemplifies the concept of utilizing the threat of public exposure to modify behavior. The prospect of suffering humiliation is also the basis of signs in shops depicting the social stigma associated with being caught shoplifting. An alternative approach is to persuade those affected by crime to be more vociferous in their condemnation of offenders. Brantingham (1986) reports a study showing that when school repair costs were taken from that school’s film budget, peer pressure on offenders resulted in a significant reduction in vandalism. Elements of social embarrassment can also be found in existing strategies.
Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2003: Hearing on S.1174 Before the Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th Cong. (2004) (statement of Cheri Nolan, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Justice Programs). In the Fiscal Year 2003 appropriation, the BJA received grants totaling $5.5 million for mental health courts for thirty-seven jurisdictions located in twenty-nine different states. Each site received a two-year grant worth about $150,000 total, have help launch these newly developed mental health courts and have helped mental health courts already in place to update and add key components to their existing mental health courts.
You step out of the shadows and clear your throat. Then again. Finally they hear you and turn around. "Oh look", the other one says, not particularly distraught. It’s [blank]. You sigh. "Guys, I really don't want any trouble. Get out of here and no one gets hurt.” They just laugh and turn back to the car door. You hear a faint cracking sound and it is wide open. Secretly you are impressed. "Final warning." They do not listen. You push yourself into the air. Then you dive towards them, tackling the bigger one out of the way and heaving the smaller one. Quickly you lift him into the air. The guy starts fidgeting and screaming, obviously too afraid to muster any real resistance. When you are a few feet above ground, you drop him. He stumbles, falls scraping his knees. He gets up and runs, his friend falling in behind him. You sigh. Then you notice that the car door is still open.