By The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability

This volume describes what we have learnt about the treatment of people with disability in the criminal justice system in Australia. In particular, we have found people with disability are significantly over-represented at all stages of the criminal justice system. Chapter 1 gives a snapshot of the available data about people with disability in the criminal justice system, common types of disability, and factors contributing to people with disability having high rates of contact with the criminal justice system. Particular groups of alleged offenders with disability are far more likely to have contact with the criminal justice system (including with police, courts and corrections) than other groups. These include First Nations people with cognitive disability, women with disability experiencing violence, and people with co-occurring cognitive disability, psychosocial disability and other disabilities. The statistics are stark. For example, a 2015 report on adult prisoners in New South Wales found that 43 per cent of First Nations women who participated in the study had a disability,4 and between 40 to 90 per cent of adult prisoners may have an acquired brain injury.5 Because of limitations in the available data, the true number of people with disability in the criminal justice system in Australia is unknown. Nonetheless, it is clear people with disability – particularly those with cognitive disability – are disproportionately represented in criminal justice settings, across all stages, from police contact and arrest, through to court processes and correctional settings. The disproportionate rate of imprisonment of people with disability is not the result of any inherent relationship between disability and crime. Rather, it reflects the disadvantages experienced by many people with disability, such as poverty, disrupted family backgrounds, family violence and other forms of abuse, misuse of drugs and alcohol, unstable housing and homelessness. People with disability, particularly cognitive disability, are also exposed to frequent and intense policing.6 People with cognitive and mental health impairments experience multiple forms of disadvantage, making them more likely to be criminalised and caught up in a cycle of reoffending and incarceration. Relatively little attention has been paid by governments to the disproportionate number of people with cognitive disability who are in custody. The data we received about the proportion of First Nations people with cognitive disability in custody, particularly in youth detention, exposes a largely hidden national crisis. For example, as of 2015, almost one in four First Nations young people aged 14 to 21 in detention were estimated to have an intellectual disability, compared with one in 12 non-Indigenous young people. Despite this strong evidence, with the possible exception of New South Wales Corrective Services, corrective service and youth justice agencies do not collect or record adequate data about disability in their prison and youth detention populations. They also use widely different methods to identify prisoners with disability. No corrective service or youth justice agencies use a culturally validated screening tool to identify disability in First Nations people in custody. This means custodial agencies cannot identify the prevalence and types of disability within incarcerated populations, or adequately understand their support needs. This lack of data also limits the development, implementation and evaluation of criminal justice disability policies and programs, and the monitoring of health and disability support needs of people with disability in custody. We heard that prisoners with disability are: • more likely to have difficulty coping with the prison environment • more likely to experience a higher rate of comorbid mental health disorders and physical conditions than prisoners without disability • at increased risk of being disadvantaged and socially isolated • at higher risk of returning to custody. Interactions with the criminal justice system come at great social and economic cost to the community. It benefits the entire community if people with disability do not enter the criminal justice system in the first place, and if treatment and supports are improved within the criminal justice system and continue after any term of imprisonment. Further research is required on the social and economic benefits of early support to prevent people with cognitive disability and complex support needs from coming into contact with the criminal justice system. Improved screening and identification practices, complemented by further research, are needed to understand the true extent of disability of people in criminal justice settings. This would also improve understanding of Australia’s compliance with its obligations to ensure the rights of people with disability are upheld in the criminal justice system.

Sydney: NSW Parliament: The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability 2023. 368p.

By Christine Reynolds, et al.

On July 1, 2014, changes proposed to Indiana’s Criminal Code were officially implemented, affecting the criminal justice system. The Indiana Criminal Justice Institute (ICJI) is statutorily obligated to monitor and evaluate the impact of the criminal code reform, reporting results to state legislators on an annual basis. Findings from the Evaluation of Indiana’s Criminal Code Reform reports1 suggest that local criminal justice professionals are concerned with the lessened severity of sentences associated with drug crimes. They suggest that this reduction in severity may have increased recidivism, perpetuating the revolving door of the justice system, and is negatively impacting an offender’s ability to recover from substance use disorder—a commonly identified association with a drug offense. In an effort to operationalize changes in severity of sentencing, this report compares drug conviction data from nine Indiana counties from a period in time before the reform to a like period after the changes set in. Results indicate that dealing and possession convictions increased, where dealing of marijuana and possession of methamphetamine had the starkest increases. Findings also displayed that felons and misdemeanants alike are being convicted differently than offenders under the legacy code. There was a 50% decrease in both dealing and possession offenses’ advisory sentence. In addition, while jail is the most common sentence placement across both time periods, alternative sentencing is utilized far more often than pre-reform, indicating that penalties for drug crimes have generally decreased. This work adds to literature concerning the effects of the criminal code reform in Indiana, and may lay the groundwork for further analysis, such as the reform’s impacts on recidivism and offender rehabilitation.

Indianapolis: Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, 2020. 26p.

By Matthew Clair, Jesus Orozco, and Iris H. Zhang

This article theorizes how space shapes access to state institutions, and with what consequences. Drawing on 125 interviews and over 400 hours of ethnographic observations concerning two criminal courthouses within the same county, we identify four spatial features that differentially shape access while working alongside institutional rules and norms: functional distance, neighborhood social life, exterior built forms, and interior built forms. When they constrain access, these features constitute spatial burdens, which contribute to distinct institutional and collateral costs concentrated among marginalized groups. We theorize how these costs likely reproduce systemic patterns of inequality by extending people’s burdensome interactions with the state institution they seek to access and compelling them to interact with other state institutions that further the state’s power over their lives. The theory of spatial burdens has implications for the study of poverty governance and institutional inequality.

Social Service Review, October 2024, 72 p.

By Scottish Government, Safer Communities Directorate

This paper presents a review of quantitative evidence on women in the justice system. It is drawn from a range of data sources, of which the most prominent are Official Statistics produced by the Scottish Government's Justice Analytical Services.

Whilst the analysis in this paper seeks to highlight (and quantify) the differences and similarities between women and men in the justice system, it does not by itself explain why these may exist. Social research and other qualitative evidence would be more appropriate in providing further context for this. For example, qualitative research with victims-survivors of rape and sexual assault as they journey through the justice system in Scotland is available from the Scottish Centre for Crime & Justice Research[1]. Qualitative evidence which provides an insight into the impact of Coronavirus (COVID-19) restrictions on people experiencing domestic abuse and other forms of violence against women and girls is available on the Scottish Government website[2].

Key findings from these statistics are that:

• Women account for a much smaller proportion of those involved across Scotland's justice system than men (for example prosecutions, convictions, people in prison). This pattern has been constant over time, and is similar to what is seen in other parts of the UK[3].

• Women and men tend to experience crime in different ways, with a significant factor being the type of crime experienced, including violence. Women are much more likely to experience sexual victimisation and to be victims of partner abuse, while men are more likely to experience serious non-sexual violence (such as homicide and serious assault).

• Feelings of safety have improved over the longer term for women, but have remained consistently behind those of men. This may, at least in part, explain why a greater proportion of women are worried about experiencing crime than men – despite actual experiences of overall crime victimisation being similar for both women and men in Scotland.

• Women represent a minority of those convicted of a crime and of the prison population in Scotland, a feature that is consistent over time. Women also tend to be convicted of different types of crime when compared to men.

• Women generally receive shorter sentences than men, are less likely to receive a custodial sentence and are reconvicted less often on average.

• Looking at views on the criminal justice system, women are less confident in the system than men on a number of measures asked about in the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey (for example, confidence that the criminal justice system allows all those accused of crimes to get a fair trial regardless of who they are).

• Justice organisations in Scotland show a mixed picture in terms of their workforce composition. Generally, females continue to make up a minority of more senior roles across the board. While there is targeted effort within organisations in terms of improving diversity, some continue to have a widely male dominated workforce, while others have female employees as the clear majority of their staff.

Edinburgh: Scottish Government, 2022. 34p.