Dynamic and static factors associated with discharge dispositions : the national trajectory project of individuals found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) in Canada

The majority of individuals found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) in Canada spend some time in hospital before they are conditionally or absolutely (no conditions) discharged to the community by a legally mandated review board. By law, the decision to conditionally discharge an individual found NCRMD should be guided by the need to protect the public, the mental condition of the accused, and the other needs of the accused, especially regarding his/her community reintegration. At the time of this study, Canadian legislation and case law required that the review board disposition should be the "least onerous and least restrictive" possible for the accused. This means that, if there is no evidence that the person poses a significant risk to public safety, he/she must be released. However, the Canadian Criminal Code does not specify the criteria that must be considered when making this risk assessment. This leads to two questions. (1) What predicts review board dispositions? (2) To what extent do disposition determinations reflect evidence-based practices? The present study examined dynamic and static predictors of detention in custody, conditional discharge (CD), and absolute discharge (AD) dispositions among persons found NCRMD across the three largest provinces in Canada. The National Trajectory Project (NTP) examined men and women found NCRMD in British Columbia (BC), Québec (QC), and Ontario (ON) between May 2000 and April 2005, followed until December 2008. For the purposes of this study, individuals who had at least one hearing with a review board were extracted from the NTP dataset (N = 1794: QC = 1089, ON = 483, BC = 222). Over the course of the study, 6743 review board hearings were examined (QC = 3505, ON = 2185, BC = 1053). Despite advances in the risk assessment field, presentation of a comprehensive structured risk assessment to the review board was not the norm. Yet our findings suggest that review boards were taking into account a combination of empirically validated static and dynamic risk factors, as represented by the items of the HCR-20 risk assessment scheme. Particular attention was being paid to the behavior of the patient between hearings (e.g., violent acts, compliance with conditions). Severity of index offense was associated with review board decisions; though index severity is not related to recidivism, it is an important consideration in terms of public perceptions of the justice system and can be related to better established risk factors (i.e., criminal history and prior violence). Historical factors had more influence on the decision to detain someone, while clinical factors were more influential on an AD decision. Disposition stability was the most common trajectory, meaning that a patient with a prior CD disposition was most likely to receive another CD disposition at the next hearing. Static and dynamic risk factors found in the HCR-20 influenced review board determinations, although presentation of a complete structured risk assessment is the exception, not the norm. Results suggest that clinicians recommending less restrictive dispositions are more likely to include a comprehensive risk assessment with their recommendation. An alternative explanation is that, when there is no comprehensive assessment of risk, the review board tends to be more cautious and apply more restrictive dispositions. The practice seems to be contrary to the legislation at the time of the study, given that there should be a presumption that the patient is not a significant threat

Imprisonment and internment: Comparing penal facilities North and South

Recent references to the ‘warehouse prison’ in the United States and the prisión-depósito in Latin America seem to indicate that penal confinement in the western hemisphere has converged on a similar model. However, this article suggests otherwise. It contrasts penal facilities in North America and Latin America in terms of six interrelated aspects: regimentation; surveillance; isolation; supervision; accountability; and formalization. Quantitatively, control in North American penal facilities is assiduous (unceasing, persistent and intrusive), while in Latin America it is perfunctory (sporadic, indifferent and cursory). Qualitatively, North American penal facilities produce imprisonment (which enacts penal intervention through confinement), while in Latin America they produce internment (which enacts penal intervention through release). Closely entwined with this qualitative difference are distinct practices of judicial involvement in sentencing and penal supervision. Those practices, and the cultural and political factors that underpin them, represent an interesting starting point for the explanation of the contrasting nature of imprisonment and internment

A Review of Economic Consequences and Costs of Male Violence Against Women

[EN] This article focuses on male violence against women. As it takes place in what is often considered to be 'the private sphere' of the home, violence is difficult to prove, to measure, to prevent and easy to ignore. A multi-country study (WHO, 2005, WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence against women: Summary report of initial results on prevalence, health outcomes and women's responses, Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization) shows that there are wide variations between countries resulting in 15 per cent to 71 per cent of women aged between 15 and 49 years saying that they have been victims of physical or sexual violence in intimate relationships. This article reviews and summarises literature that analyse types of economic costs that result from domestic violence and abuse perpetrated against women.The theoretical reflections and findings are from a research project funded by the European Commission through the Leonardo da Vinci Programme named 'Giving Hope to Victims of Abuse through Vocational Guidance', promoted and coordinated by the University Miguel Hernandez of Elche. The content of this paper does not necessarily reflect the position of the European Union or the National Agency, nor does it involve any responsibility on their part (Agreement number: 2011/3500-516610-LLp-1-2011-1-ES-LEONARDO-LMP).López-Sánchez, MJ.; Belso-Martínez, JA.; Hervás Oliver, JL. (2019). A Review of Economic Consequences and Costs of Male Violence Against Women. Indian Journal of Gender Studies. 26(3):424-434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971521519861194S424434263Babcock, J. C., Waltz, J., Jacobson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M. (1993). Power and violence: The relation between communication patterns, power discrepancies, and domestic violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 40-50. doi:10.1037/0022-006x.61.1.40Bloch, F., & Rao, V. (2002). Terror as a Bargaining Instrument: A Case Study of Dowry Violence in Rural India. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1029-1043. doi:10.1257/00028280260344588Comijs, H. C., Pot, A. M., Smit, J. H., Bouter, L. M., & Jonker, C. (1998). Elder Abuse in the Community: Prevalence and Consequences. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 46(7), 885-888. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1998.tb02724.xFord-Gilboe, M., Wuest, J., & Merritt-Gray, M. (2005). Strengthening Capacity to Limit Intrusion: Theorizing Family Health Promotion in the Aftermath of Woman Abuse. Qualitative Health Research, 15(4), 477-501. doi:10.1177/1049732305274590Garbarino, J., & Crouter, A. (1978). Defining the Community Context for Parent-Child Relations: The Correlates of Child Maltreatment. Child Development, 49(3), 604. doi:10.2307/1128227Grana, S. J. (2001). Journal of Family Violence, 16(4), 421-435. doi:10.1023/a:1012229011161HEISE, L. L. (1998). Violence Against Women. Violence Against Women, 4(3), 262-290. doi:10.1177/1077801298004003002Kim, J., & Gray, K. A. (2008). Leave or Stay? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(10), 1465-1482. doi:10.1177/0886260508314307Krug, E. G., Mercy, J. A., Dahlberg, L. L., & Zwi, A. B. (2002). The world report on violence and health. The Lancet, 360(9339), 1083-1088. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)11133-0LAMBERT, L. C., & FIRESTONE, J. M. (2000). Economic Context and Multiple Abuse Techniques. Violence Against Women, 6(1), 49-67. doi:10.1177/1077801200006001004Max, W., Rice, D. P., Finkelstein, E., Bardwell, R. A., & Leadbetter, S. (2004). The Economic Toll of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. Violence and Victims, 19(3), 259-272. doi:10.1891/vivi.19.3.259.65767(2003). Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e721242007-001Reeves, C., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2007). The Effects and Costs of Intimate Partner Violence for Work Organizations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(3), 327-344. doi:10.1177/0886260506295382Roldós, M. I., & Corso, P. (2013). The Economic Burden of Intimate Partner Violence in Ecuador: Setting the Agenda for Future Research and Violence Prevention Policies. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 14(4), 347-353. doi:10.5811/westjem.2013.2.15697Schiamberg, L. B., & Gans, D. (1999). An Ecological Framework for Contextual Risk Factors in Elder Abuse by Adult Children. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 11(1), 79-103. doi:10.1300/j084v11n01_05(1993). World Development Report 1993. doi:10.1596/0-1952-0890-0TOLMAN, R. M., & ROSEN, D. (2001). Domestic Violence in the Lives of Women Receiving Welfare. Violence Against Women, 7(2), 141-158. doi:10.1177/1077801201007002003Wuest, J., Ford-Gilboe, M., Merritt-Gray, M., & Berman, H. (2003). Intrusion: The Central Problem for Family Health Promotion among Children and Single Mothers after Leaving an Abusive Partner. Qualitative Health Research, 13(5), 597-622. doi:10.1177/1049732303013005002Yodanis, C. L., Godenzi, A., & Stanko, E. A. (2000). The Benefits of Studying Costs: A Review and Agenda for Studies on the Economic Costs of Violence Against Women. Policy Studies, 21(3), 263-276. doi:10.1080/0144287002001953