/
Strengthening Dr Michelle Butler, Dominic Kelly, Strengthening Dr Michelle Butler, Dominic Kelly,

Strengthening Dr Michelle Butler, Dominic Kelly, - PowerPoint Presentation

pressio
pressio . @pressio
Follow
343 views
Uploaded On 2020-06-17

Strengthening Dr Michelle Butler, Dominic Kelly, - PPT Presentation

Dr Cate McNamee 31 August 2018 Explaining disparities in prison misconduct Why do some amass more adjudications than others Views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Northern Ireland Prison Service ID: 780817

misconduct prison number adjudications prison misconduct adjudications number amp amass individuals individual complex risk offending factors release findings study

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download The PPT/PDF document "Strengthening Dr Michelle Butler, Domini..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Strengthening

Dr Michelle Butler, Dominic Kelly, Dr Cate McNamee31 August 2018

Explaining disparities in prison misconduct: Why do some amass more adjudications than others?

Views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Northern Ireland Prison Service.

Slide2

Prison Misconduct

Three main theoretical perspectives used to understand the occurrence of prison misconduct:

Deprivation (Sykes, 1958)Importation (Irwin &

Cressey, 1962)

Management (

DiIulio

, 1990)Studies indicate all play a role but considerable variation in predictors of misconduct (see Steiner et al., 2014).

Slide3

Prison Misconduct

Internationally, prison misconduct is often responded to by confinement, exclusion, forfeiture of privileges, or longer periods of imprisonment.

Individuals involved in prison misconduct are at a higher risk of re-offending upon release (

Brunton-Smith & Hopkins, 2013; Cochran et al., 2014;

Trulson

et al., 2011).

Slide4

Present Study

This study seeks to enhance our understanding of prison misconduct by:

Examining why some people amass more adjudications than others.Investigating the role that individual, societal, and prison-related variables play in predicting the number of adjudications individuals amass.

Exploring the predictors of prison misconduct in a jurisdiction that has not previously been examined.

Offering suggestions for possible next steps to address the needs of those who amass large numbers of adjudications and reduce their risk of re-offending on release.

Slide5

Methodology

Research design: Cross-sectional administrative data.

Sample: n=892 adult males detained in Maghaberry prison on 22 November 2017 (approximately 63% of the entire NI prison population).

Procedure: In partnership with the prison, administrative data from the prison computerised system was used to create an anonymised dataset (see Table 1).

Analysis: Negative binominal regression was used to analyse the data.

Measures

Age

Religion

Nationality

Race/ethnicity

Offence history

Self-reported medical history of mental health issues, addiction, behavioural problems, head injury and/or epilepsy; self-harm; communication, speech, hearing or vision impairments

Postcode

Total days spent in custody

Total number of drug tests taken and passed

Number of prison complaints submitted

Number of visits an individual had completed throughout their time in prison

Number of times an individual had been placed on the Supporting Prisoners at Risk Process (SPARS) due to concerns about self-harm or suicidal thoughts

Total number of adjudications amassed throughout their time in prison up until the 22 November 2017

Slide6

Findings

Slide7

Findings

Slide8

Findings

A small number of individuals amassed a large number of adjudications, with 2% of the sample reporting over 100 adjudications.Individuals were more likely to amass adjudications if they were younger, lived in high crime neighbourhoods or outside of Northern Ireland, and reported complex needs (e.g. self-disclosed mental illness, history of addiction, impairments, head injury, epilepsy or having been judged to be at risk of self-harm while in prison).

Those who complained more about the prison regime, had not yet taken a drug test, or did not pass all their drug tests were also more likely to amass adjudications.

Slide9

Theoretical Implications

Need to pay attention to how individual, prison and societal factors interact to influence disparities in the amount of adjudications individuals amass. Also, need to examine how cultural and political factors shape how prison misconduct is interpreted and responded to.

An emphasis solely on individual responsibility, rationality and deterrability may limit the effectiveness of interventions with those amassing large numbers of adjudications due to their complex needs and limited capacity to control their behaviour, think rationally or be deterred.

Slide10

Possible Next Steps

Recognise the limitations of using practices emphasising rationality and deterrability with chronic offenders given their complex needs.Develop specific programmes designed to address the complex needs chronic offenders present with, as well as tackle relevant prison and societal related factors.

Expand existing service provision to be better able to cope with the complex needs these individuals present with and challenge cultural and political views which may limit the interventions offered.

Slide11

References

Brunton-Smith, I. & Hopkins, K. (2013). The factors associated with proven re-offending following release from prison: findings from Waves 1 to 3 of SPCR

. London: Ministry of Justice Analytical Services. Cochran, J. C., Mears, D. P., Bales, W. D., & Stewart, E. A. (2014). Does inmate behavior affect post-release offending? Investigating the misconduct-recidivism relationship among youth and adults. Justice Quarterly

, 31(6), 1044-1073.DiIulio, J. J. (1990). Governing prisons: A comparative study of correctional management. New York: The Free Press.

Irwin, J., & Cressey, D. R. (1962). Thieves, convicts and the inmate culture.

Social problems

, 10(2), 142-155.Sykes, G. M. (2007). The society of captives: A study of a maximum security prison. Princeton University Press.Trulson, C. R., DeLisi, M., & Marquart, J. W. (2011). Institutional misconduct, delinquent background, and rearrest frequency among serious and violent delinquent offenders.

Crime & Delinquency, 57(5), 709-731.

Slide12

Email:

michelle.butler@qub.ac.uk