DOCSLIB.ORG

Inquiry Into Imprisonment and Recidivism © Queensland Productivity Commission 2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

2019 DRAFT REPORT Inquiry into Imprisonment and Recidivism © Queensland Productivity Commission 2019 The Queensland Productivity Commission supports and encourages the dissemination and exchange of information. However, copyright protects this document. The Queensland Productivity Commission has no objection to this material being reproduced, made available online or electronically but only if it is recognised as the owner of the copyright and this material remains unaltered. This report is available online and in PDF format on our website: http://www.qpc.qld.gov.au WEB qpc.qld.gov.au TEL (07) 3015 5111 email [email protected] ABN 18 872 336 955 Have your say Imprisonment and recidivism: Have your say The Treasurer has directed the Queensland Productivity Commission (the Commission) to Key dates undertake an inquiry into imprisonment and recidivism in Queensland. Issues paper released 13 September 2018 This draft report provides an opportunity for consultation on the issues raised by the inquiry— Initial consultation and, in particular, on our preliminary analysis, September–October 2018 findings and recommendations. Draft report released The final report will be prepared after further 1 February 2019 consultation and will be provided to the Submissions due Queensland Government in August. 17 April 2019 Final report submitted to the Queensland Make a submission Government 1 August 2019 The Commission invites all interested parties to make a submission on the draft report. Submissions are due by close of business 17 April 2019. They can be lodged online or via post: The Queensland Productivity Commission is an Imprisonment and recidivism inquiry independent statutory body that provides Queensland Productivity Commission policy advice on complex economic and PO Box 12112 regulatory issues. George St QLD 4003 The Commission has an advisory role and Submissions are treated as public documents and operates independently from the Queensland are published on the Commission's website. If your Government—its views, findings and submission contains genuinely confidential recommendations are based on its own information, please provide the confidential analysis and judgments. material in a clearly marked separate attachment. Further information on the Commission and its Contacts functions can be obtained from the Enquiries regarding this project can be made by Commission’s website www.qpc.qld.gov.au telephone (07) 3015 5111 or online at www.qpc.qld.gov.au/contact-us Queensland Productivity Commission i Foreword Foreword In September 2018, the Queensland Government directed the Queensland Productivity Commission to undertake an inquiry into imprisonment and recidivism. This report summarises our early findings and nominates areas where further information is sought. Despite declining crime rates, the imprisonment of Queenslanders is escalating. Concerning trends include the growth in the rate of imprisonment of women, which doubled the rate of men over the last ten years, and the significant and growing over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. These matters are not unique to Queensland and reflect wider Australian and international trends. In direct financial terms, imprisonment costs the Queensland community almost a billion dollars every year. Its social costs, although harder to measure, are much greater. Incarceration has profound impacts on prisoners, their families and the community— loss of employment, housing, relationships, as well as mental health problems and potential criminogenic effects—all of which increase the risk of reoffending. In this report, we ask whether community safety is best served by continuing the current approach. Is there a case for some crimes to be punished with non-custodial options? Could better outcomes be achieved with greater attention to rehabilitation and reintegration? Would some offences be better treated as medical issues than criminal offences? Should victims be empowered by building in restitution and restoration options? Early indications are that the community may actually be made safer by reforming current practices, and we are seeking further information to allow us to complete the inquiry. This report reflects the contributions of over 400 stakeholders, representing a broad cross-section of Queenslanders—government agencies, victim peak bodies, prisoner advocates, unions, the judiciary, corrections officers, prisoners, Indigenous peak bodies, and academics. We applaud the willingness of stakeholders to seek better outcomes for victims, offenders, and the community. Finally, we would like to thank the staff of the Commission for their commitment and professionalism in the preparation of this material. Kim Wood Bronwyn Fredericks Principal Commissioner Commissioner (Presiding Commissioner) February 2019 Queensland Productivity Commission ii Contents Contents Imprisonment and recidivism: Have your say i Foreword ii Overview vii Draft recommendations xxxiii 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 What has the Commission been asked to do? 2 1.2 Our approach 2 1.3 Consultation 3 1.4 Report structure 4 Part A Background 5 2.0 Conceptual framework 7 2.1 Introduction 9 2.2 Objectives 9 2.3 The role of government 11 2.4 Are current policies and programs effective at keeping communities safe? 12 2.5 Are there more effective and efficient policies that would improve outcomes? 14 2.6 Are there ways to improve decision-making across and within government, and encourage innovations to improve efficiency? 16 2.7 A framework for considering policy options 17 3.0 An overview of the system 19 3.1 The criminal justice system in Queensland 21 3.2 Criminal justice comprises two parts—making and enforcing criminal law 26 3.3 A system of interdependence and independence 30 4.0 State of play and how we got here 31 4.1 Introduction 33 4.2 A long-term decline in crime rates 33 4.3 Rising rates of imprisonment 37 4.4 Drivers of the increasing adult prison population 42 4.5 A comparison with the 1990s increase in imprisonment 46 5.0 Recidivism—trends and measurement 49 5.1 Introduction 51 5.2 Available measures 51 5.3 Trends 52 Queensland Productivity Commission iii Contents 5.4 Constructing a measure of recidivism 57 5.5 Conclusion 59 6.0 Benefits and costs of imprisonment 61 6.1 Introduction 63 6.2 The CBA approach 63 6.3 What are the benefits of imprisonment? 64 6.4 What are the costs of imprisonment? 67 6.5 What may the net impact be? An illustrative example 69 6.6 Alternatives to imprisonment 70 Part B Analysis of the system 73 7.0 Prevention and early intervention 75 7.1 Introduction 77 7.2 Types of prevention and early intervention 78 7.3 Challenges with prevention and early intervention 80 7.4 Effectiveness of prevention and early intervention 82 7.5 Prevention and early intervention in Queensland 83 7.6 Where are the opportunities in Queensland? 85 8.0 Diversionary options 91 8.1 The reason for diversion 93 8.2 Diversion in Queensland 94 8.3 Some potential directions for reform 94 9.0 Reducing the scope of crime 101 9.1 Introduction 103 9.2 Costs of criminalisation 103 9.3 Does Queensland make excessive use of the criminal law? 105 9.4 How to consider which acts should be criminalised 108 9.5 Reform options 111 9.6 Some preliminary analysis 114 9.7 The way forward 122 10.0 A victim-focused system 125 10.1 Introduction 127 10.2 Current assistance provided to victims 127 10.3 Victims remain peripheral to the system 130 10.4 Consequences of the current system 131 10.5 A victim-focused sentencing reform 134 Queensland Productivity Commission iv Contents 10.6 Potential impacts of a victim-focused system 138 10.7 The way forward 140 11.0 Increasing non-prison sentencing options 143 11.1 Assessment of custodial and non-custodial penalties 145 11.2 Extending non-custodial sentencing options 149 11.3 Increased use of low security facilities 153 11.4 Net widening 154 11.5 Better information to support sentencing 155 11.6 Judicial accountability 157 12.0 Reducing the remand population 163 12.1 Issues with remand in custody 165 12.2 Trends in remand 167 12.3 Why is remand growing? 168 12.4 Opportunities for reform 171 13.0 In-prison rehabilitation 179 13.1 Introduction 181 13.2 Lessons from overseas 181 13.3 How well does in-prison rehabilitation work in Queensland? 184 13.4 Improving in-prison rehabilitation 188 13.5 Preliminary assessment 192 14.0 Reintegration of prisoners 195 14.1 The value of reintegration services 197 14.2 Existing reintegration services 198 14.3 The effectiveness of reintegration services 202 14.4 Issues with reintegration services 206 Part C System reforms 209 15.0 Coordinating rehabilitation and reintegration 211 15.1 Introduction 213 15.2 Features of effective throughcare 214 15.3 Assessment of Queensland's existing model 216 15.4 Reform directions 217 15.5 Reforms in Queensland and elsewhere 222 15.6 Conclusion 225 16.0 Improving decision-making and allocating funding 229 16.1 Introduction 231 Queensland Productivity Commission v Contents 16.2 The current decision-making framework 232 16.3 Options for improving decision-making 239 16.4 What is the right option for Queensland? 247 17.0 Appendices 251 Appendix A Terms of reference 252 Appendix B Submissions 254 Appendix C Consultations 256 Appendix D Previous Reviews 259 Appendix E From offences to prison 264 Appendix F Empirical evidence on the effectiveness of prevention and early intervention programs 265 Appendix G Definition and classification of crime 268 18.0 Glossary 283 18.1 Table of acronyms and initialisations 290 References 291 Queensland Productivity Commission vi Overview Overview Queensland Productivity Commission vii Overview Queensland Productivity Commission viii Overview Key points • The rate of imprisonment in Queensland—the number of prisoners per head of population—has increased by 44 per cent between 2012 and 2018.
Recommended publications
  • Introduction to Victimology and Victims' Rights Van Der Aa, Suzan

    Introduction to Victimology and Victims' Rights Van Der Aa, Suzan

    Tilburg University Introduction to victimology and victims' rights van der Aa, Suzan Published in: Strengthening judicial cooperation to protect victims of crime Publication date: 2014 Document Version Early version, also known as pre-print Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): van der Aa, S. (2014). Introduction to victimology and victims' rights. In Strengthening judicial cooperation to protect victims of crime: Handbook (pp. 6-12). Superior Council of Magistracy of Romania. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 04. okt. 2021 This publication has been produced with the financial support of the Specific Programme Criminal Justice of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the
  • Does Imprisonment Deter? a Review of the Evidence

    Does Imprisonment Deter? a Review of the Evidence

    April 2011 Sentencing Advisory Council Donald Ritchie Sentencing Matters Does Imprisonment Deter? A Review of the Evidence Contents Executive summary 1 Background 2 Deterrence in Victoria 4 Deterrence theory 7 General deterrence 12 Specific deterrence 18 Concluding remarks 23 Glossary 24 Bibliography 25 Executive summary Deterrence can be described as the prevention of crime Deterrence theory is based upon the classical economic through the fear of a threatened – or the experience of an theory of rational choice, which assumes that people weigh actual – criminal sanction. General deterrence is aimed at up the costs and benefits of a particular course of action reducing crime by directing the threat of that sanction at all whenever they make a decision. Deterrence theory relies potential offenders. Specific deterrence is aimed at reducing on the assumption that offenders have knowledge of the crime by applying a criminal sanction to a specific offender, in threat of a criminal sanction and then make a rational choice order to dissuade him or her from reoffending. whether or not to offend based upon consideration of Deterrence is only one of the purposes of sentencing in Victoria, that knowledge. determined by section 5(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). The Rational choice theory, however, does not adequately other purposes are: punishment, denunciation, rehabilitation and account for a large number of offenders who may be community protection (incapacitation). considered ‘irrational’. Examples of such irrationality can The scope of this paper is limited to examining the sentencing vary in severity – there are those who are not criminally purpose of deterrence only – it does not present an analysis of responsible due to mental impairment, those who are drug the evidence of imprisonment’s effectiveness in regard to other affected or intoxicated and those who simply act in a way that sentencing purposes.
  • Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice

    Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice

    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2015 Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice Allegra M. McLeod Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1490 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2625217 62 UCLA L. Rev. 1156-1239 (2015) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Social Control, Law, Crime, and Deviance Commons Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice Allegra M. McLeod EVIEW R ABSTRACT This Article introduces to legal scholarship the first sustained discussion of prison LA LAW LA LAW C abolition and what I will call a “prison abolitionist ethic.” Prisons and punitive policing U produce tremendous brutality, violence, racial stratification, ideological rigidity, despair, and waste. Meanwhile, incarceration and prison-backed policing neither redress nor repair the very sorts of harms they are supposed to address—interpersonal violence, addiction, mental illness, and sexual abuse, among others. Yet despite persistent and increasing recognition of the deep problems that attend U.S. incarceration and prison- backed policing, criminal law scholarship has largely failed to consider how the goals of criminal law—principally deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retributive justice—might be pursued by means entirely apart from criminal law enforcement. Abandoning prison-backed punishment and punitive policing remains generally unfathomable. This Article argues that the general reluctance to engage seriously an abolitionist framework represents a failure of moral, legal, and political imagination.
  • POLICING REFORM in AFRICA Moving Towards a Rights-Based Approach in a Climate of Terrorism, Insurgency and Serious Violent Crime

    POLICING REFORM in AFRICA Moving Towards a Rights-Based Approach in a Climate of Terrorism, Insurgency and Serious Violent Crime

    POLICING REFORM IN AFRICA Moving towards a rights-based approach in a climate of terrorism, insurgency and serious violent crime Edited by Etannibi E.O. Alemika, Mutuma Ruteere & Simon Howell POLICING REFORM IN AFRICA Moving towards a rights-based approach in a climate of terrorism, insurgency and serious violent crime Edited by Etannibi E.O. Alemika, University of Jos, Nigeria Mutuma Ruteere, UN Special Rapporteur, Kenya Simon Howell, APCOF, South Africa Acknowledgements This publication is funded by the Ford Foundation, the United Nations Development Programme, and the Open Societies Foundation. The findings and conclusions do not necessarily reflect their positions or policies. Published by African Policing Civilian Oversight Forum (APCOF) Copyright © APCOF, April 2018 ISBN 978-1-928332-33-6 African Policing Civilian Oversight Forum (APCOF) Building 23b, Suite 16 The Waverley Business Park Wyecroft Road Mowbray, 7925 Cape Town, ZA Tel: +27 21 447 2415 Fax: +27 21 447 1691 Email: [email protected] Web: www.apcof.org.za Cover photo taken in Nyeri, Kenya © George Mulala/PictureNET Africa Contents Foreword iv About the editors v SECTION 1: OVERVIEW Chapter 1: Imperatives of and tensions within rights-based policing 3 Etannibi E. O. Alemika Chapter 2: The constraints of rights-based policing in Africa 14 Etannibi E.O. Alemika Chapter 3: Policing insurgency: Remembering apartheid 44 Elrena van der Spuy SECTION 2: COMMUNITY–POLICE NEXUS Chapter 4: Policing in the borderlands of Zimbabwe 63 Kudakwashe Chirambwi & Ronald Nare Chapter 5: Multiple counter-insurgency groups in north-eastern Nigeria 80 Benson Chinedu Olugbuo & Oluwole Samuel Ojewale SECTION 3: POLICING RESPONSES Chapter 6: Terrorism and rights protection in the Lake Chad basin 103 Amadou Koundy Chapter 7: Counter-terrorism and rights-based policing in East Africa 122 John Kamya Chapter 8: Boko Haram and rights-based policing in Cameroon 147 Polycarp Ngufor Forkum Chapter 9: Police organizational capacity and rights-based policing in Nigeria 163 Solomon E.
  • The Case for More Incarceration

    The Case for More Incarceration

    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Policy and Communications Office of Policy Development The Case for More Incarceration 1992 &7 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Policy and Communications Office of Policy Development The Case for More Incarceration 1992, NCJ-J39583 139583 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the Ph~rson or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in t IS do.c~ment ~~e those of (he authors and do not necessarily rep'esent the official position or pOlicies of the National Institute of Justice. Permtisdsion to reproduce this II f) I8llM material has been gran~d t:1y • . • .l?UbllC Danain/Off. of Poliey Communications/Off. of POlley Develop. to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Ffutrthher repr?ductlon outside of the NCJRS system requires permission o e ........ owner. NCJRS ~AN 5 1993 ACQUISITIONS (@ffitt nf tltt Attnrntl1 <&tntral liIus1yingtnn, i.QT. 20530 October 28, 1992 In July, I released a report entitled Combating Violent Crime: 24 Recommendations to strengthen Criminal Justice, set­ ting forth a comprehensive strategy for making state criminal justice systems more effective in achieving their central purpose -- the protection of our citizens. As I stated then, there is no better way to reduce crime than to identify, target, and incapa­ citate those hardened criminals who commit staggering numbers of violent crimes whenever they are on the streets. Of course, we cannot incapacitate these criminals unless we build sufficient prison and jail space to house them.
  • Criminology Penology and Sentencing Human Right

    Criminology Penology and Sentencing Human Right

    Criminology Penology and Sentencing Human Right Dimensions of Punishment and Sentencing Component - I (A)- Personal Details Role Name Affiliation Principal Investigator Prof(Dr) G S Bajpai Registrar National Law University Delhi Paper Coordinator Mr. Neeraj Tiwari Assistant Professor, National Law University Delhi Content Writer/Author Mr. Manwendra Kumar Assistant Professor, Tiwari RMLNLU, Lucknow Content Reviewer Prof. BB Pande Former Professor, Faculty of Law, Delhi University Component - I (B)- Description of Module Subject Name Criminology Paper Name Penology and Sentencing Module Name/Title Human Right Dimensions of Punishment and Sentencing Module Id Criminology/Penology & Sentencing/25 Pre-requisites Basic understanding of the Criminal Justice System in India and familiarity with the concept of Human Rights and rationale for punishment in Criminal Law Objectives To understand the interplay between Punishment, Sentencing and Human Rights. To understand why theorising the idea of punishment and sentencing in relation to human rights will always be contested Key Words Punishment, Sentencing, Human Right, Imprisonment, Degrading Punishment, minimum sentence, maximum sentence, Sentencing Discretion, Concurrent Sentences, Consecutive Sentences, Individualized Punishment, Execution, Death Row, Inordinate Delay “Trying a man is easy, as easy as falling off a log, compared with deciding what to do with him when he has been found guilty.” - Justice Henry Alfred McCardie 1. Introduction Punishment in law is the moral condemnation and denunciation by the society of the offence committed by the offender. Modern Penology, however, also insists on the individualization of punishment by insisting that sentencing must not be based solely on the aspects of crime committed but also on the elements attributable to the criminal.
  • From Slavery to Mass Incarceration

    From Slavery to Mass Incarceration

    loïc wacquant FROM SLAVERY TO MASS INCARCERATION Rethinking the ‘race question’ in the US ot one but several ‘peculiar institutions’ have success- ively operated to define, confine, and control African- NAmericans in the history of the United States. The first is chattel slavery as the pivot of the plantation economy and inceptive matrix of racial division from the colonial era to the Civil War. The second is the Jim Crow system of legally enforced discrimination and segregation from cradle to grave that anchored the predominantly agrarian society of the South from the close of Reconstruction to the Civil Rights revolution which toppled it a full century after abolition. America’s third special device for containing the descendants of slaves in the Northern industrial metropolis is the ghetto, corresponding to the conjoint urbanization and proletarianization of African-Americans from the Great Migration of 1914–30 to the 1960s, when it was ren- dered partially obsolete by the concurrent transformation of economy and state and by the mounting protest of blacks against continued caste exclusion, climaxing with the explosive urban riots chronicled in the Kerner Commission Report.1 The fourth, I contend here, is the novel institutional complex formed by the remnants of the dark ghetto and the carceral apparatus with which it has become joined by a linked relationship of structural symbiosis and functional surrogacy. This suggests that slavery and mass imprisonment are genealogically linked and that one cannot understand the latter—its new left review 13 jan feb 2002 41 timing, composition, and smooth onset as well as the quiet ignorance or acceptance of its deleterious effects on those it affects—without return- ing to the former as historic starting point and functional analogue.
  • Imprisonment: Where?

    Imprisonment: Where?

    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. IMPRISONMENT: WHERE? -- --- - --5 DEC "1 '\918 Imprisonment: where? Institutions (prisons and remand houses) to which persons* sentenced to tenns of imprisonment may be committed There are various types of t)(ison in the Netherlands, each type being intended for a particular category of piisoner, for instance young persons or aduits, prisoners serving short-term or long-term sentenQ~S, men or women. Selection for any of these institutions takes into account: - age; - length of sentence. Another important factor is whether or not the person concerned wa~ already in custody when sentenced (i.e. on remand in a rgrnand house). Age As far as age is concerned, a distinction is drawn between adults (persons aged 23 and over} and young p1'lrsons (the 18 -23 age-group; in some cases, persons under 18 Or ;:,VGii persons of23 and 24). length of sentence When distinguishing between persons serving short-term and long-term sentences, the actual du ration of the sentence is taken into account, that is to say, the sentence imposed less any period spent in custody awaiting trial or sentence (Le. in preliminary detention). The length of sentence is important since, as already * the only establishment to which women sentenced to imprisonment are committed Is the Rotterdam Women's Prison; the information given in this pamphlet, therefore, refers only to male prisoners. 1 stated, a number of institutions are intended for prisoners serving short-term sentences and a number of others for those serving long-term sentences.
  • Minimum Standard Non-Parole Period Final Report

    Minimum Standard Non-Parole Period Final Report

    Minimum standard non-parole periods FINAL REPORT September 2011 Minimum standard non-parole periods FINAL REPORT ii Published by the: Sentencing Advisory Council Level 30, 400 George St Brisbane Qld, Australia 4000 GPO Box 2360 Brisbane Qld 4001 Tel: 1300 461 577 Fax: (07) 3405 9780 Email: [email protected] www.sentencingcouncil.qld.gov.au This publication is available for download from the Council’s website. © State of Queensland (Sentencing Advisory Council) 2011 Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any process without prior permission. Inquiries should be addressed to the Sentencing Advisory Council as the publisher. National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication data: Sentencing Advisory Council (Qld). Minimum standard non-parole periods: final report / Sentencing Advisory Council (Qld). ISBN 978-0-9871456-2-8 (pbk). Prison sentences—Queensland. Sentences (Criminal procedure)—Queensland. Criminal justice, Administration of—Queensland. 364.6209943 This publication follows the referencing style of the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (Melbourne University Law Review Association Inc, 3rd ed, 2010). Disclaimer This report is not intended to provide legal advice, and has been prepared by the Council only to respond to the Terms of Reference issued to it by the Attorney-General. While all reasonable care has been taken in the
  • World War Ii Internment Camp Survivors

    World War Ii Internment Camp Survivors

    WORLD WAR II INTERNMENT CAMP SURVIVORS: THE STORIES AND LIFE EXPERIENCES OF JAPANESE AMERICAN WOMEN Precious Vida Yamaguchi A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY August 2010 Committee: Radhika Gajjala, Ph.D., Advisor Sherlon Pack-Brown, Ph.D. Graduate Faculty Representative Lynda D. Dixon, Ph.D. Lousia Ha, Ph.D. Ellen Gorsevski, Ph.D. © 2010 Precious Vida Yamaguchi All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Radhika Gajjala, Advisor On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066 required all people of Japanese ancestry in America (one-eighth of Japanese blood or more), living on the west coast to be relocated into internment camps. Over 120,000 people were forced to leave their homes, businesses, and all their belongings except for one suitcase and were placed in barbed-wire internment camps patrolled by armed police. This study looks at narratives, stories, and experiences of Japanese American women who experienced the World War II internment camps through an anti-colonial theoretical framework and ethnographic methods. The use of ethnographic methods and interviews with the generation of Japanese American women who experienced part of their lives in the United State World War II internment camps explores how it affected their lives during and after World War II. The researcher of this study hopes to learn how Japanese American women reflect upon and describe their lives before, during, and after the internment camps, document the narratives of the Japanese American women who were imprisoned in the internment camps, and research how their experiences have been told to their children and grandchildren.
  • Criminal Prosecution and the Rationalization of Criminal Justice

    Criminal Prosecution and the Rationalization of Criminal Justice

    -- Criminal Prosecution and The Rationalization of Criminal Pixstice Final Report William F. McDonald National Institute of Justice Fellow National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice December, 1991 Acknowledgments This study was supported by Grant No. 88-IJ-CX-0026 from the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice to Georgetown University which made possible my participation in the NIJ Fellowship Program. It was also supported by my sabbatical grant from Georgetown University, which allowed me to conduct interviews and observations on the Italian justice system. And, it was supported by a travel grant from the Institute of Criminal Law and Procedure, Georgetown University Law Center. I would like to acknowledge my appreciation to the many people who made this entire undertaking the kind of intellectually and personally rewarding experience that one usually only dreams about. I hope that their generosity and support will be repaid to some extent by this report and by other contributions to the criminal justice literature which emerge from my thirteen months of uninterrupted exploration of the subject of this Fellowship. In particular I wish to thank James K. (Chips) Stewart, Joseph Kochanski, Bernard Auchter, Richard Stegman, Barbara Owen, Antonio Mura, Antonio Tanca, Paolo Tonini, Gordon Misner, and Samuel Dash and the anonymous NIJ reviewers who found my proposal for the Fellowship worth supporting. Points of view or opinions are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of policies of the U.S. Department of Justice Georgetown University or any of the persons acknowledged above.
  • CRIMINOLOGY Penology and Sentencing Sentencing As The

    CRIMINOLOGY Penology and Sentencing Sentencing As The

    CRIMINOLOGY Penology and Sentencing Sentencing as the Means of Insuring Victims Justice Component – I (A) - Personal Details Role Name Affiliation Principal Investigator Prof(Dr) G S Bajpai Registrar National Law University Delhi Paper Coordinator Neeraj Tiwari Assistant Professor, National Law University, Delhi Content Writer/Author Nikhil Kashyap Assistant Professor, Amity Law School, Amity University, Noida, UP Content Reviewer Prof. BB Pande Former Professor, Faculty of Law, Delhi University Component - I (B) - Description of Module Description of Module Subject Name Criminology Paper Name Penology and Sentencing Module No. Criminology/Penology & Sentencing/23 Module Name/Title Sentencing as the means of insuring victim justice Pre-requisites Basic knowledge of criminal procedure and trials. Objectives The student will be able to argue the importance of Sentencing. The student will be able to appraise the importance of victim at the stage of sentencing The student will be able analyze the necessary steps that are required to realize the goal of restorative justice at the stage of sentencing. Keywords Sentencing, Victims, Justice 1. Introduction Sentencing is a very crucial part of criminal trial. It is indeed the last part of the trial. Sentencing takes place after the conviction is made against the accused. There are various purposes of sentencing. They are as under: Deterrence Protection of Society Sentencing Denunciation Rehabilitation Deterrence refers to the process of avoiding similar future criminal conduct. Denunciation refers to the act of society that shows the feeling of hatred for the crime committed. Rehabilitation is the process by which the offender is reformed and rehabilitated to be a part of civil society.