Upload
christiana-wyatt
View
217
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This presentation
• Why do we need alternatives to imprisonment?
• What alternatives are used in Europe?
• Do they operate as alternatives, or as additions to imprisonment?
• What are the effects of alternatives to imprisonment on drug use and crime?
• What are the information needs in this area?
Prison populations are rising…
Mean imprisonment rates (per 100,000 pop'n)
02040
6080
100120140
160180200
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
EU15
New EU
Other CofE
Source: Council of Europe Penal Statistics (SPACE I)
… as crime falls
Indices of self-reported victimisation in 12 EU countries (base=1995)
50
60
70
80
90
100
1995 1999 2004
Theft
Burglary
Robbery
Sexual incidents
Assaults and threats
Sources: International Crime Victimisation Survey & EU Crime and Safety Survey
Prisons are overcrowded
Source: Council of Europe Penal Statistics (SPACE I), * US Bureau of Justice Statistics
0
50
100
150
200
250
Malt
aLa
tvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbo
urg
UK: Nor
ther
n Ire
land
USA jails
*
UK: Eng
land a
nd W
ales
Denmar
k
Germ
any
Estonia
Nether
lands
Romania
Czech
Rep
ublic
Portu
gal
Slovenia
UK: Sco
tland
Sweden
Austri
a
Georg
ia
Belgium
Franc
e
Finlan
d
Poland
Spain
Italy
USA Fede
ral p
rison
s*
Hungar
y
Cypru
s
Greec
e
Bulgar
ia
Pri
son
den
sity
(p
op
'n p
er 1
00 p
lace
s)
… and prisons do not work
• Deterrence Imprisonment does not deter (Tonry 2004)
• Rehabilitation Longer sentences lead to more reoffending
(Gendreau 1999)
• Incapacitation: Small effects at high cost (Kuziemko &
Levitt 2004)
• Retribution If in doubt, do not inflict pain (Christie, 1981)
Alternatives to imprisonment…
• Decriminalisation
• Diversion of drug users from prosecution
• Quasi-compulsory treatment Treatment of drug using offenders that is ordered,
motivated or encouraged by the criminal justice system and takes place outside regular prisons.
Person retains the choice to go to treatment or face the usual sanction for their crime.
The alternative sanction should be the same as would be faced for any other person who committed that crime
• People should not be punished for refusing or failing in treatment.
Types of Quasi-Compulsory Treatment orders available in various EU countries
Country Type of order Stage of CJS Targeted offenders Type of diversion
Austria § 35 SMG“Vorläufige Zurücklegung der Anzeige
durch den Staatsanwalt“
From police custody or during the prosecution process
Drug crimesAcquisitive Crimes
Suspension of prosecution
§ 37 SMG„ Vorläufige Einstellung durch das Gericht“
From police custody or or pre- trial detention
Drug crimesAcquisitive Crimes
Suspension of court hearings
§ 39 SMG„ Aufschub des Strafvollzuges““Therapie statt Strafe“
From pre- trail detention or at court hearings
Any crime committed by an offender who is substance dependent
Suspension of prison sentence
England Drug Rehabilitation Requirement At trial sentencing Offenders eligible for a community sentence who are drug dependent
Condition attached to a Community Order
Germany § 35, 36 BtMG Strafaussetzung„ Therapie statt Strafe“
Pre- trial detention, Pre-trial hearings, or
during sentence.
Offenders facing prison sentences of less than 2 years
Suspension of sentence under probation supervision
§ 37 BtMG Zurückstellung der Strafe im Rahmen der
Ermittlung
Deferment of prosecution because of low seriousness of offence
Offenders who are already participating in a treatment programme and who commit minor crimes.
Suspension of prosecution
§ 38, 39 BtMGAussetzung der Strafe um Rahmen der
Strafverfolgung
Pre-trial detention, or youth/juvenile detention
Offenders facing prison sentences of less than 2 years
Suspension of sentence under probation supervision
§ 56 StGBBewährungsauflage
Court hearings Crimes committed in connection with drugs
Specific order of the court
Italy Ex art. 91 c. 3 T. U. 309/90 Court hearings, or during sentence
Drug dependent offenders facing less than 6 years remaining of a prison sentence (except Mafiosi)
Suspension of imprisonment under supervision of probation
QCT Europe - Crimes leading to QCT sentence
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Englan
dIta
ly
Austri
a
Switzer
land
Germ
any
Property
Drug dealing
Violence
Alternatives to imprisonment? The case of England & Wales
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Inde
x (1
995=
100)
Community sentencesincluding drug treatment
New sentenced prisonadmissions
… and the prison population has risen
Annual prison population, England & Wales, 1995-2007
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
1995 1998 2001 2004 2007
Decriminalisation as the real alternative
Number of prisoners under sentences for drug and other offences in Portugal, 1997-2005
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Non-drug offences
Drug offences
Effects of alternatives – The QCT Europe Sample
UK – 157 Austria – 150
Germany – 153Switzerland – 85
Italy – 300 Total – 845 people
Half in QCT
Half in ‘voluntary’ treatment
Drug use
Reductions in Drug Use
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Intake 6 months 12 months 18 months
Eu
rop
AS
I Dru
g U
se S
core
'Voluntary'
QCT
Crime
Reductions in mean reported days of offending (in past 6 months)
01020304050607080
Intake 6 months 12 months 18 months
Da
ys
'Voluntary'
QCT
Limitations
• Sample sizes were relatively small in each country.
• The sample did not compare QCT clients to prisoners (it was not possible to randomise sentencing).
• Results based on self-report.
• There were large differences between treatment centres in the quality and outcomes of treatment.
Information needs
• Is QCT being used as an alternative to imprisonment? Number of people entering alternatives to imprisonment
each year. The profile of their offences. The number of people entering prison each year.
• Does QCT ‘work’? Replication of quasi-experimental studies. Randomised controlled trials.
• Using variety of indicators (toxicology, police data). ‘Realistic’ evaluations (Pawson & Tilley, 1998).
• Including qualitative methods
• What makes QCT work better? How to improve inter-agency cooperation? Motivational enhancement:
• Contingency management?• Graduated sanctions?
Residential or outpatient?
• Cost-effectiveness of QCT.
Finally
•Thanks to QCT Europe partners: Paul Turnbull, Tim McSweeney, Neil
Hunt, Ambros Uchtenhagen, Susanne Schaaf, Kerrie Oeuvray, Daniele Berto, Wolfgang Werdenich, Barbara Trinkl, Viktoria Kerschl, Wolfgang Heckmann
•QCT Europe was funded by the European Commission’s 5th Framework RTD Programme
•For more information: www.connectionsproject.eu [email protected]