High Risk Offenders: Post-Sentence Supervision and Detention

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more

High-Risk Offenders: Post-Sentence Supervision and Detention Discussion and Options Paper January 2007 Sentencing Advisory Council Published by the Sentencing Advisory Council Melbourne Victoria Australia. © Copyright State of Victoria, Sentencing Advisory Council, January 2007. This publication is protected by the laws of copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council. High-risk offenders : post-sentence supervision and detention: discussion and options paper. Bibliography. Includes index. ISBN 9781921100079. ISBN 1 921100 07 9. 1. Recidivists - Victoria. 2. Detention of persons - Victoria. 3. Preventive detention - Victoria. 4. Sentences (Criminal procedure) - Victoria. 5. Criminal behavior, Prediction of - Victoria. I. McSherry, Bernadette. II. Title. 364.309945 Also published on www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au Authorised by the Sentencing Advisory Council, 4/436 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. Printed by Big Print, 520 Collins Street, Melbourne. The publications of the Sentencing Advisory Council follow the Melbourne University Law Review Association Inc Australian Guide to Legal Citations (2nd edn, 2002). ii High-Risk Offenders: Post-Sentence Supervision and Detention Discussion and Options Paper Contents Preface ix Abbreviations xii Have Your Say xiv Warning to Readers xiv Questions xv Chapter 1: Background 1 Our Terms of Reference 1 The Council’s Approach 2 Issues Paper, Community Focus Groups and Recidivism Paper 2 Discussion and Options Paper 3 The Next Step 4 Chapter 2: Purposes of Post-Sentence Schemes 5 What is Post-Sentence Supervision or Detention? 5 The Purposes of Post-Sentence Schemes 5 Introduction 5 Issues 7 Approaches to Post-Sentence Schemes 8 Introduction 8 Issues 9 Chapter 3: Determining Risk: Who are ‘High-Risk’ Offenders? 13 Introduction 13 What do we know about High-Risk Offenders? 15 The Problems of Identifying which Offenders are at Risk of Reoffending 17 Risk of What? 20 At What Stage Should Risk be Assessed? 22 Who Should Assess Risk? 24 Treatment as a Means of Managing Risk 25 Sex Offender Programs 25 Violent Offender Treatment Programs in Victoria 31 Issues 31 Chapter 4: The Current Framework 35 Introduction 35 At Sentence: Sentencing Options 35 Australian Approaches 35 Canada 41 The United Kingdom 43 Scotland 44 New Zealand 45 iii Issues 46 During Sentence: Managing High-Risk Offenders in Victoria 48 Introduction 48 Parole 48 Issues 49 Post-Sentence: Current Options in Victoria 49 Post-Sentence Extended Supervision: An Overview 50 Preventive Offences 52 Sex Offender Registration 54 Options for Reform 55 Introduction 55 Continuing Detention and Other Australian Approaches 55 United Kingdom Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) and Sex Offences Prevention Orders (SOPO). 58 Scottish Risk Management Authority 61 Canada 62 Community Responses to Managing Risk: Circles of Support and Accountability 63 Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder Program (UK) 64 Conclusion 66 Chapter 5: The Merit of Continuing Detention 67 Introduction 67 The Relevance of Risk Assessment to Merit 67 Determining Risk 67 Issues 68 The Effects of Continuing Detention on Treatment 71 Constitutional Issues 72 Is Continuing Detention Compatible with Human Rights? 76 Due Process 80 The Principles of Proportionality and Finality in Sentencing 80 ‘Rule of Law’ Principles 81 Procedural Fairness 82 Double Jeopardy and the Principle against Double Punishment 83 Criminal Detention Must Only Follow a Finding of Guilt 85 The Principle Against Retrospective Laws 86 Does Continuing Detention Meet Its Objectives? 87 Is Continuing Detention the Best Use of Resources? 88 Is There a Need for Continuing Detention? 93 Chapter 6: Structure of a Supervision and Detention Scheme 97 Introduction 97 Implications of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities 97 Compatibility with Human Rights 97 Is the Restriction or Degree of Interference Reasonable and Demonstrably Justified in the Circumstances? 99 A Discussion Model 100 Introduction 100 A New Post-Sentence Supervision and Detention Scheme? 102 iv High-Risk Offenders: Post-Sentence Supervision and Detention Discussion and Options Paper Purpose 108 Australian Approaches 108 Issues 108 Discussion Model 109 Eligibile Offenders 109 Introduction 109 Victorian Extended Supervision Scheme 110 Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales 110 International Approaches 111 Consultation 111 Issues 113 Discussion Model 115 The Application Process: Who, When and How? 116 Introduction 116 When Should an Application be Made and By Whom? 117 Process for Screening Eligible Cases 118 Who Should Make the Order? 127 Directions Hearings and Interim Orders 129 Discussion Model 132 Legal Test, Risk Assessment and Evidence 133 Overview 133 Risk Assessment and Relevant Evidence 134 Legal Test, Onus and Standard of Proof 140 Issues 144 Discussion Model 148 Other Criteria—Principle of Reciprocal Obligation 149 Duration of Continuing Detention Orders 151 Introduction 151 Victorian Extended Supervision Scheme 151 Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales 151 International Approaches 152 Consultation 152 Discussion Model 153 Conditions of Orders 155 Victorian Extended Supervision Scheme 155 Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales 156 International Approaches 158 Discussion Model 159 Accommodation 161 Introduction 161 Offenders on Supervision Orders 161 Offenders on Detention Orders 163 Discussion Model 166 Least Restrictive Alternative 167 The Management of Offenders 168 Offenders on Supervision Orders 168 Offenders on Detention Orders 170 v An Integrated Approach? 170 Consultation 171 Discussion Model 175 Variation, Review and Appeal 177 Introduction 177 Variation 177 Review 179 Appeal 183 New Zealand 185 Issues 186 Discussion Model 187 Breach Provisions 189 Victorian Extended Supervision Scheme 189 Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales 190 International Approaches 191 Discussion Model 191 Additional Safeguards 192 Suppression Orders 192 Transparency and Reporting 193 Right to be Heard and to Legal Representation 197 Are Any Additional Safeguards Required? 199 Victims of Crime and Continuing Detention 200 Victorian Extended Supervision Scheme 200 Western Australia 201 New Zealand 201 Submissions 201 Issues 202 Discussion Model 202 Chapter 7: Relationship with Existing Schemes 203 Introduction 203 Consultation 203 Indefinite Sentences and Serious Offender Provisions 203 Extended Supervision Orders 203 Discussion Model 204 Indefinite Sentences 204 Serious Offender Provisions 206 Extended Supervision Orders 206 References 207 Appendix 1: Case Studies 213 Appendix 2: Tables 216 Appendix 3: Submissions 221 vi High-Risk Offenders: Post-Sentence Supervision and Detention Discussion and Options Paper List of Figures & Tables Figure 1: Offences in High-Risk Offender Schemes 14 Figure 2: Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel for Level 3 Offenders 59 Figure 3: The Three Key Principles of the CoSA Program 64 Figure 4: Discussion Model—Flowchart 104 Figure 5: Discussion Model 105 Figure 6: Cases considered, referred and applications made and granted under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) since 6 June 2003 120 Figure 7: Cases considered, referred and applications made and granted under the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) since commencement. 122 Figure 8: Process for Identifying Eligible Offenders 123 Table 1: The Purposes of Post-Sentence Supervision or Detention Schemes 6 Table 2: Sentencing Options in Vic, Qld, WA and NSW 36 Table 3: Application Process for Supervision or Continuing Detention 117 Table 4: Evidence Relevant to Whether the Legal Test for Making an Order is Satisfied 133 Table 5: Criteria, Onus and Standard of Proof for Supervision or Detention Orders 134 Table 6: Duration of Extended Supervision and Continuing Detention Schemes 151 Table 7: Variation of Supervision and Continuing Detention Orders 177 Table 8: Review of Supervision or Continuing Detention Orders 179 Table 9: Appeal of Supervision or Continuing Detention Orders 183 Table 10: Legislation Enabling Indefinite Detention 216 Table 11: Australian Parole Provisions 216 Table 12: Provisions for the Post-sentence Supervision of Sex-Offenders 216 Table 13: Australian National Child (Sex) Offender Register 217 Table 14: Successful applications for supervision or detention orders (reported decisions) in QLD 218 Table 15: Relevant Offences under Victorian Indefinite Sentencing and Post-Sentence Extended Supervision Schemes 219 vii viii High-Risk Offenders: Post-Sentence Supervision and Detention Discussion and Options Paper Preface Around Australia, and in many other jurisdictions in the common law world, governments and legal systems are grappling with the practical and jurisprudential problems posed by high-risk offenders whose sentences have expired but who are still considered to be dangerous. Over recent years particular attention has been focused upon sex offenders whose offending has been of great community concern. One response has been to create continuing detention or supervision schemes which extend the state’s control over an offender beyond the end of the sentence. The law has responded in many ways to high-risk offenders, including allowing courts to impose indefinite sentences at the time of sentence. But allowing courts to extend detention beyond the expiration of a finite term involves
Recommended publications
  • Executive Detention

    Executive Detention

    NYSBA REPORT ON EXECUTIVE DETENTION, HABEAS CORPUS AND THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006 NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION’S COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS MAY 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY.............................................................................. 1 A. The Guantanamo Detainees....................................................................... 2 B. Report Summary ........................................................................................ 7 I. HISTORY OF HABEAS CORPUS..................................................................... 12 A. The Origins of Habeas Corpus: England ................................................. 12 B. Extra-Territorial Application of Habeas Corpus at Common Law.......... 15 C. Early American Habeas Law ................................................................... 17 D. Early American Extension of Habeas Corpus to Aliens and Alien Enemy Combatants .................................................................................. 20 E. American Suspension of Habeas Corpus................................................. 23 F. World War II and the Extension of Habeas Corpus to Enemy Aliens ....................................................................................................... 28 G. Relevant Post-World War II Habeas Developments ............................... 33 H. Adequate and Effective Habeas Substitute.............................................. 37 II. LAWS OF WAR REGARDING ENEMY COMBATANTS PRE- SEPTEMBER 11TH ...........................................................................................
  • Cruel State Punishments

    Cruel State Punishments

    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 98 Number 6 Article 2 9-1-2020 Cruel State Punishments William W. Berry III Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation William W. Berry III, Cruel State Punishments, 98 N.C. L. REV. 1201 (2019). Available at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol98/iss6/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 98 N.C. L. REV. 1201 (2020) CRUEL STATE PUNISHMENTS* WILLIAM W. BERRY III** The Supreme Court has almost systematically expanded Eighth Amendment protections over the past decade and a half, adopting categorical limitations to the death penalty and juvenile life without parole. With Justice Kennedy’s recent retirement, this expansion seems like it might be ending. As this door is closing, however, another door may be opening for restricting excessive punishments—state constitutional analogues to the Eighth Amendment. A close examination of such provisions reveals that some of the provisions use “or” instead of “and,” a linguistic difference that suggests many state constitutions might be broader than the Eighth Amendment. This Article explores the consequences of linguistic differences between the Eighth Amendment and its state constitutional analogues, focusing in particular on the effect of disjunctive state constitutional provisions. Specifically, the Article argues that these linguistic differences open the door to broader application of state Eighth Amendment analogues to rein in excessive punishment practices of state governments.
  • Sentence and Release Options for High-Risk Sexual Offenders

    Sentence and Release Options for High-Risk Sexual Offenders

    Report prepared for the ACT Government on Sentence and Release Options for High-Risk Sexual Offenders by Professor David Biles OAM Consultant Criminologist and Professorial Associate, Charles Sturt University September 2005 1 Australian Capital Territory, Canberra 2005 Department of Justice and Community Safety GPO Box 158 Canberra ACT 2601 For an electronic version of this guide visit the publications area in the JACS website, at www.jcs.act.gov.au For telephone enquiries about this guide, please call: (02) 6207 0595 or 6207 0520 2 Contents Page 1. Executive Summary......................................................................................................... 4 2. Introduction...................................................................................................................... 7 3. Terms of Reference.......................................................................................................... 9 4. Acknowledgements........................................................................................................ 11 5. Australian Law and Practice .......................................................................................... 12 5.1 New South Wales................................................................................................... 12 5.2. Victoria ..................................................................................................................15 5.3. Queensland............................................................................................................
  • ARTICLES the OBJECTS of the CONSTITUTION Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz*

    ARTICLES the OBJECTS of the CONSTITUTION Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz*

    ROSENKRANZ-63 STAN. L. REV. 1005 (DO NOT DELETE) 5/8/201110:58 PM ARTICLES THE OBJECTS OF THE CONSTITUTION Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz* INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 1006 I. THE TWO DIMENSIONS OF THE WHO QUESTION ............................................. 1008 A. Barron v. Baltimore .................................................................................. 1010 B. Beyond Barron .......................................................................................... 1015 1. Federal subjects ................................................................................ 1016 a. The objects of Article I, Section 8 ................................................ 1016 b. The objects of Article I, Section 9 ................................................ 1018 2. State subjects ..................................................................................... 1024 II. THE OBJECTS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS ............................................................ 1028 A. The Subject of the First Amendment ......................................................... 1028 B. The Object of the Third Amendment ......................................................... 1028 C. The Objects of the Fourth Amendment ..................................................... 1033 1. The object of searches and seizures .................................................. 1034 2. The object of warrants .....................................................................
  • Arguments for the Continued Detention of Dangerous Sex Offenders

    Arguments for the Continued Detention of Dangerous Sex Offenders

    POSITION PAPER Balancing Rights: Arguments for the continued detention of dangerous sex offenders Originally published: 2013 Last updated: November 2017 About the Authors Carol Ronken worked as a researcher and Associate Lecturer at Griffith University in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice before joining Bravehearts in May 2003. With a BA(Psych) and Masters Applied Sociology(Social Research), Carol is the Director of Research for Bravehearts and is passionate about ensuring the organisation’s active involvement in research, policy and legislative development that aims to prevent, respond to, and ultimately reduce the incidence of child sexual assault in the community. In 2011 she received an award from the Queensland Police Service Child Protection and Investigation Unit for her contribution to child protection. Carol has also co-authored The Bravehearts Toolbox for Practitioners working with Child Sexual Assault (Australian Academic Press, 2011). Carol is a member of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology, the International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, and the Child Protection Practitioners Association of Queensland. She sits on the Federal e-Safety Commissioner’s Online Safety Consultative Working Group, the Queensland Victim Services Interagency Organisation Network, the Queensland Child Protection Advocates Group and Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council. In January 2017, Carol accepted a 3 year position as a Visiting Fellow in the School of Justice, Faculty of Law, at Queensland University of Technology. Bravehearts Foundation Limited ABN: 41 496 913 890 ACN: 607 315 917 PO Box 575, Arundel BC, Qld 4214 Phone 07 5552 3000 Email [email protected] Information & Support Line 1800 272 831 bravehearts.org.au © 2017 Bravehearts Foundation Ltd 2 About Bravehearts Bravehearts has been actively contributing to the provision of child sexual assault services throughout Australia since 1997.
  • The Price of Freedom RIGHTS Bail and Pretrial Detention of Low Income Nonfelony Defendants in New York City WATCH

    The Price of Freedom RIGHTS Bail and Pretrial Detention of Low Income Nonfelony Defendants in New York City WATCH

    United States HUMAN The Price of Freedom RIGHTS Bail and Pretrial Detention of Low Income Nonfelony Defendants in New York City WATCH The Price of Freedom Bail and Pretrial Detention of Low Income Nonfelony Defendants in New York City Copyright © 2010 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 1-56432-718-3 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor New York, NY 10118-3299 USA Tel: +1 212 290 4700, Fax: +1 212 736 1300 [email protected] Poststraße 4-5 10178 Berlin, Germany Tel: +49 30 2593 06-10, Fax: +49 30 2593 0629 [email protected] Avenue des Gaulois, 7 1040 Brussels, Belgium Tel: + 32 (2) 732 2009, Fax: + 32 (2) 732 0471 [email protected] 64-66 Rue de Lausanne 1202 Geneva, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 738 0481, Fax: +41 22 738 1791 [email protected] 2-12 Pentonville Road, 2nd Floor London N1 9HF, UK Tel: +44 20 7713 1995, Fax: +44 20 7713 1800 [email protected] 27 Rue de Lisbonne 75008 Paris, France Tel: +33 (1)43 59 55 35, Fax: +33 (1) 43 59 55 22 [email protected] 1630 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20009 USA Tel: +1 202 612 4321, Fax: +1 202 612 4333 [email protected] Web Site Address: http://www.hrw.org December 2010 ISBN: 1-56432-718-3 The Price of Freedom Bail and Pretrial Detention of Low Income Nonfelony Defendants in New York City Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 7 I. The Bail Process ...........................................................................................................................
  • In the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division

    In the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division

    Case: 1:16-cv-11471 Document #: 132 Filed: 03/31/19 Page 1 of 61 PageID #:1506 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) PAUL MURHY et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) No. 16 C 11471 ) v. ) Judge Virginia M. Kendall ∗ ) KWAME RAOUL et al., ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Paul Murphy is indigent and homeless. He was convicted of possession of child pornography in 2012 and received a sentence of three years’ probation. Five years after his release date, and nearly twice the number of years of his sentence, he re- mains incarcerated because the Department of Corrections cannot find an appropri- ate place for him live. Illinois, like many states, requires sentencing courts to follow a term of impris- onment with a term of mandatory supervised release. Supervised release is a form of post-confinement monitoring intended to assist individuals in their transition from prison to liberty. Most supervised release terms are determinate, but some—includ- ing those that apply to several sex offenses—are indeterminate, meaning they range from three years to natural life. The clock on these terms does not start ticking until ∗ Because Kwame Raoul became the Attorney General of Illinois on January 14, 2019, he automatically substitutes in as a defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). Page 1 of 61 Case: 1:16-cv-11471 Document #: 132 Filed: 03/31/19 Page 2 of 61 PageID #:1507 sex offenders are out of prison, but some never make it that far because they are indigent and the State demands that they first secure a qualifying host site before it will release them.
  • Due Process in Civil Contempt Proceedings: a Comparison with Juvenile and Mental Incompetency Requirements

    Due Process in Civil Contempt Proceedings: a Comparison with Juvenile and Mental Incompetency Requirements

    Fordham Law Review Volume 44 Issue 5 Article 7 1976 Due Process in Civil Contempt Proceedings: A Comparison with Juvenile and Mental Incompetency Requirements William A. Austin Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation William A. Austin, Due Process in Civil Contempt Proceedings: A Comparison with Juvenile and Mental Incompetency Requirements, 44 Fordham L. Rev. 1029 (1976). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol44/iss5/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DUE PROCESS IN CIVIL CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS: A COMPARISON WITH JUVENILE AND MENTAL INCOMPETENCY REQUIREMENTS A New York father and his mistress were jailed for almost two years for refusing to produce his child at a custody proceeding.' A law that would have limited imprisonment for civil contempt to one year, proposed as a result of this case, was vetoed by the Governor of New York. 2 On the other hand, an alleged member of organized crime was released by the New Jersey Supreme Court after being incarcerated for almost five years for refusing to testify before the State Commission of Investigation. 3 These events indicate a need to reevaluate the due process afforded a civil contemnor, for just as the controversy over a jury trial for criminal contemnors4 raged for years, 5 the question of coercive imprisonment may have reached the boiling point.
  • Good Things Come to Those Who Wait? Reconsidering Indeterminate and Indefinite Detention As Tools in U.S

    Good Things Come to Those Who Wait? Reconsidering Indeterminate and Indefinite Detention As Tools in U.S

    GOOD THINGS COME TO THOSE WHO WAIT? RECONSIDERING INDETERMINATE AND INDEFINITE DETENTION AS TOOLS IN U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY MICHAEL S. VASTINE* Introduction Detention of deportable immigrants is a major component of the United States' immigration enforcement policy. Our cultural consciousness is rife with examples of detention practice throughout our history and detention is a part of our immigrant tradition. European immigrants passed through Ellis Island quickly unless a reason, usually health-based, was presented to justify detention. This is so pervasive in our national mythology that even the fictional Vito Corleone of The Godfather movies was quarantined at Ellis Island for three months for smallpox infection. As a parallel model, in the early twentieth century the majority of Asian immigrants were processed and potentially detained at Angel Island in San Francisco Bay.1 In the early 1990s, political instability in Haiti led to a mass exodus of refugees who eventually were housed on the U.S. naval * Michael S. Vastine is Assistant Professor and Director of the Immigration Clinic at St. Thomas University School of Law. 1 See generally Angel Island, State Park, San Francisco, www.angelisland.com/immigration-station/index.php. Angel Island is now a California State Park. The website stated: In 1905, construction of the [Angel Island] U.S. Immigration Station began. It became a detention facility, where Asian (primarily Chinese) immigrants were detained until they could prove they were joining relatives already in the country. The average detention lasted two to three weeks, but many lasted several months. Some people were forced to stay for nearly two years.
  • Human Rights and Indefinite Detention

    Human Rights and Indefinite Detention

    Volume 87 Number 857 March 2005 Human rights and indefinite detention Alfred de Zayas* J.D. (Harvard), Dr. phil. (Göttingen), member of the New York Bar, former Secretary of the Human Rights Committee and Head of the Petitions Unit, visiting professor of law, University of British Columbia and of the Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva. “Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law.” Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in his ruling of 16 December 20041 Abstract International human rights law abhors a legal black hole. It applies wherever a State exercises its jurisdiction, not only in peacetime but also during armed conflict, as a compliment to humanitarian law. The deprivation of liberty is subject to certain conditions, and even initially lawful detention becomes arbitrary and contrary to law if it is not subject to periodic review. Indefinite detention is incompatible with Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. While temporary derogation from this provision is allowed in Article 4 of the ICCPR, such derogation is only possible “in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation” and “to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.” Persons deprived of their liberty are entitled to a prompt trial or release, and in cases of arbitrary detention, they are entitled to compensation. Neither the war on terror nor restrictive immigration policies justify indefinite detention. : : : : : : : * I would like to thank Oldrich Andrysek and Christoph Bierwirth of UNHCR for their useful suggestions. 15 A. de Zayas – Human rights and indefinite detention Persons deprived of their liberty are never de jure in a black hole.
  • Defining the Elephant: a History of Psychopathy, 1891-1959

    Defining the Elephant: a History of Psychopathy, 1891-1959

    Defining the Elephant: a History of Psychopathy, 1891-1959 Susanna Elizabeth Evelyn Shapland Department of History, Classics and Archaeology Birkbeck, University of London Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, February 2019 1 DECLARATION I confirm that all material presented in this thesis is my own work, except where otherwise indicated. Signed .............................................. 2 ABSTRACT Although ‘psychopath’ is a term which is still in use by psychiatrists, it has come to be used as a way of dismissing individuals as irredeemably ‘bad’, untreatable or unpleasant, both by professionals and the public. This attitude is supported by existing histories of psychopathy that are in fact simply histories of the criminal personality, and rely upon retrofitting the diagnosis to historical examples of criminal or problematic behaviour to support their claims of psychopathy’s universal and timeless nature. This thesis disrupts that narrative. By examining the ways in which the terms psychopath, psychopathy and psychopathic are used in historical context, and how this changed over time, it challenges the idea of psychopathy as a fixed and value-free term, and reveals that there were multiple, competing versions of psychopathy in a history rich with contested meanings and overlapping usage. In analysing discussions of how psychopaths were diagnosed, managed and treated, it shows that the history of psychopathy is marked by a fundamental lack of agreement over the parameters of this ‘wastebasket’ diagnosis, which time and again proved too useful to discard. 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My thanks go first and foremost to my supremely patient supervisor, Joanna Bourke. Her inexhaustible enthusiasm and thought-provoking and perceptive feedback have been inspirational.
  • Habeas Corpse: the Great Writ Hit

    Habeas Corpse: the Great Writ Hit

    HABEAS CORPSE: THE GREAT WRIT HIT Published in Flagpole Magazine, p. 8 (November 15, 2006). “It must never be forgotten that the writ of habeas corpus is the precious safeguard of liberty and there is no higher duty than to maintain it unimpaired.”–Charles Evans Hughes “[I]f ever temporary circumstances, or the doubtful plea of political necessity, shall lead men to look on [the] denial [of the writ of habeas corpus] with apathy, the most distinguished characteristic of our constitution will be effaced.”–Henry Hallam Twice within the last year the current, 109th Congress has enacted anti-habeas corpus statutes–statutes that curtail the efficacy of the writ of habeas corpus. These dreadful statutes are Orwellian nightmares. They are, in the words of Sen. Patrick Leahy, “un-American” and “undercut everything this nation stands for.” They are practically unparalleled in our history in opening the door to legalized oppression. They are colossal mistakes which future generations will deride in the same way our generation scorns the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 or the congressional legislation that authorized the internment of the Japanese-Americans during WW2. Before discussing the specifics of the two new anti-habeas corpus statutes, however, it would be helpful to give a brief overview of the nature, importance, and history of the writ of habeas corpus. The writ of habeas corpus protects us from being unlawfully restrained of our liberty. The granting of the writ is a key procedural step taken by the court in certain nonjury civil actions–called habeas corpus proceedings–instituted to challenge and obtain release from illegal confinement.