Criminal Justice Assignment PDF

Preview

Summary

Social work in criminal justice...

Description

SECTION 1 The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (the 1968 Act) is the foundation legislation of social work and marks the shift from a punishment to a welfarist system (McAra 2008). Section 12 of this Act makes provision for the local authorities to promote social welfare and provide advice, guidance and assistance to vulnerable adults over the age of 18. This section marks the establishment of generic social work departments within Scottish local authorities (Daniel and Scott 2018). Section 27 of the 1968 Act sets out the local authorities’ obligations to the criminal justice system – to provide courts with social background reports relating to individuals appearing before the court. This legal provision and the preparation of such reports gives local authority social workers a mandate to begin working with people who have offended as people in need and to be able to make services available. This provision of the 1968 Act is the introduction of the idea of modern criminal justice social work (CJSW) and the above-mentioned reports are now widely known as CJSW reports. The primary legal and procedural framework for court business is the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (the 1995 Act). This large piece of law covers the powers and duties of stakeholders. Section 201 of the 1995 Act empowers the court to adjourn a case before sentencing. Section 203 obliges the court to ask for a report if the individual appearing before the court falls under one of the subsections 27(1)(b)(i) to (vi) of the 1968 Act. These are the legal provisions under which social workers are asked to prepare CJSW reports and usually the first point of contact between a social worker and the person

who has committed an offence – the service user. The purpose of this report is to inform the court of relevant detail of the individual’s background and what led them to committing the particular offence (Scottish Government 2010a). Through office and home-based meetings, the social worker undertakes an assessment of the individual and provides an analytical account of the offence and past and current personal and social circumstances that link to that offence. The report also includes a risk assessment stating the likelihood and impact of the individual re-offending and the risk of harm presented to others. Finally, the social worker’s opinion and recommendation regarding the most suitable court disposal is included. Another key piece of legislation is the The Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (the 2010 Act). This Act introduces a presumption against sentences of three months or less for low level offences in favour of more robust, immediate and visible community-based sentences (McAra 2008). Section 14 of the 2010 Act inserts Sections 227A-M in the 1995 Act which introduce the Community Payback Order (CPO) attempting to clarify the meaning of community penalties to people in the justice system and in the community. In order to change the symbolism of sentencing, individuals who have offended pay back to the community through a CPO (McNeill 2016). The community sentence is tailored based on the risk that the individual presents, need and the responsivity to community justice. The policy context of CJSW is of importance since CJSW services are fully governmentally funded. This implies that the government has power over how these services are delivered. 1

The Kilbrandon Report was the first point in which offenders were recognised as people in need (Kilbrandon 1995). The 1968 Act came into force shortly after that to establish welfare as a paramount consideration. At the time when the Martinson Report (1974) stated that modern rehabilitation could only be characterised by widespread failure and suggested that rehabilitation was ineffective for reducing future criminality, the prison population was seen to increase drastically (Prison Reform Trust 1997). At the end of the 1980s the ‘twin track’ approach was introduced by Malcolm Rifkind, Secretary of State for Scotland at that time. Rifkind acknowledged that custodial sentences for those who present high risk to society cannot be avoided, however, he questioned the effectiveness of short-term imprisonment for non-violent and less serious offences (Rifkind 1989). In the 1990s, there were opposing messages regarding punitivism and offender rehabilitation and the most significant changes in CJSW practice came about (Howard 1993; McGuire 1995). Following,

simultaneously

restrictive

legislation

and

social

policy

was

introduced as well as diversion from prosecution as a restorative justice service (Kearney, Kirkwood and MacFarlane 2006). Recent policy documents that direct modern reforms to the criminal justice system and to CJSW practice have been introduced since 2017. The Reforming and Revitalising Review of community sentences reinforces the idea of using custodial sentences for high-risk individuals and dealing with lowerrisk offenders in the community (Scottish Government 2007). This was one of the first steps to reduce re-offending in Scotland. The Fair, Fast, Flexible Justice plan builds on the findings of the Reforming and Revitalising review and

2

outlines the already completed reforms of the Scottish criminal justice system and those in process (Scottish Government 2008). The National Outcomes and Standards for Social Work in the Criminal Justice System (NOS) is the current CJSW practice framework. It replaces the 1991 National Objectives and Standards with a change in the language of the title to emphasise a more individualised approach. The update reflects developing policy and research (Scottish Government 2010b). The 3 key outcomes for CJSW in Scotland are public protection, reducing re-offending and supporting desistance from crime. The NOS introduce the ‘four R’s’ – the main CJSW interventions necessary in order to achieve the key outcomes. Restrictions are external changes which may incapacitate individuals or impose a variety of conditions limiting

their

movements,

associations

and

behaviours.

Rehabilitation

interventions refer to internal changes that individuals have to make which are likely to support their desistance from crime. When considering rehabilitation, attention needs to be paid to the risk of re-offending and harm that the individuals imposes, needs related to offending and responsivity. Reparation links with the concept of restorative justice or paying back to the community to compensate for the harm caused by crime. This can be through purposeful unpaid work that starts immediately after the order has been made to satisfy the public’s sense of justice. Reintegration is essential practical support which helps people move on in terms of desistance and no longer place a significant risk to the public. The combination of the ‘4 Rs’ in different cases is based on assessment of risk and need (Scottish Government 2010). 3

The National Strategy for Community Justice reinforces rehabilitation of individuals who have offended and their reintegration into the community (Scottish Government 2016).

SECTION 2 An assessment in CJSW is underpinned by knowledge of criminology. Criminological theories explain the reasons why individuals commit offences and engage in criminal behaviour in particular circumstances (Smith 1995). Criminological theories would help to comprehend what has motivated Gavin to commit the offence. They might be helpful to explain his thinking and behaviour as well as criminogenic needs that are satisfied by engaging in antisocial behaviour (Smith 1995). Motivation behind crime can be instrumental and expressive (Youngs, Ioannou and Eagles 2014). It can be argued that when committing previous offences Gavin has had instrumental motivation, meaning that the offence was committed with the purpose of obtaining an incentive – alcohol, in his case. However, it is likely that there is expressive motivation behind the assault of Jack. This would suggest that the offence was an act of emotion committed in the heart of the moment in order to overpower a source of frustration (Youngs, Ioannou and Eagles 2014). Considering their past, Gavin can be deemed to have engaged in the criminal behaviour out of long-term anger or rage towards 4

Jack. It can be argued that there is some instrumental motivation behind the assault as Gavin mentioned that he ‘did not want to be seen as weak’. He might have confronted Jack in order to be socially accepted by his workmates. Psychological

theories

of

criminality

might

contribute

to

the

understanding of Gavin’s thoughts and behaviour. However, they cannot, on their own, explain it entirely and need to be complimented by other criminological theories. Sociological theories of crime make an assumption that crime is influenced by external factors – experiences in the areas individuals live, family and peer groups. There is sufficient information in the case study that provides different reasons why Gavin might be engaging in criminal activities from a sociological point of view. Different control theories might be helpful to understand the way Gavin thinks and behaves. These theories are often occupied with the reasons why people do not commit crime and are based on the assumption that criminal motivation is widespread and the presence or absence of control determines whether individuals engage in criminal activity (Britt and Gottfredson 2003). The social bonding theory highlights the importance of relationships and the role they play in committing crime (Hirschi 1969). Gavin seems to have formed a positive relationship with his girlfriend, however, it is evident that in his past he would engage in criminal behaviour when social bonds were weak or there was a lack of positive ties to society. In episodes where he refrained from criminal activity, it seems like there were strong bonds with his brother or father. There are four key components of social bonding – attachment, commitment, involvement and belief. The first to can be related to Gavin. 5

Attachment relates to how strong Gavin’s positive relationships with others, who expect him to obey the law, are. Hirschi (1969) claims that individuals are more likely to obey the law if the attachment and expectations are strong. Commitment refers to how committed Gavin is to his current lifestyle – being in a positive relationship and having a job. When individuals are strongly committed to their lifestyle, they have more to lose and are less likely to deviate from that lifestyle through crime. Also, Gavin mentions that because of his offending behaviour others might not consider him a ‘good person’. This suggests that he might consider himself negatively labelled by society. Such label is likely to stabilise him in a criminal role and affect how others see him as well as influence his behaviour and the way he views himself (Becker 1997). Taking into account Gavin’s age, drift theory might also apply. It refers to young people who are likely to ‘drift in an out’ of offending behaviour (Matza 1990). Engaging in anti-social behaviour is often a way to satisfy their need to belong. Gavin’s offending history began when he was 17 - around the time when he lost his older brother with whom he had a strong bond. Then, aged 18 the relationship with his mother broke down. A couple of years later, he lost his birth

father

as

well.

These

changes

and

bereavements

entitle

loss

(Goldsworthy 2010). Gavin shares that he is still grieving for his brother and it is likely that he is grieving for the loss of his father as well. Risk assessment comprises communicating, investigating, observing and persisting in order to gather and analyse relevant information regarding the 6

potential outcome of behaviours (Morgan 2007). The general tool for risk assessment in Scotland is the Level of Service \ Case Management Inventory or LS/CMI (Risk Management Authority 2018). Risk is the likelihood of something happening when there is more than one possible outcome. In CJSW, risk assessment examines the chances of service

users

Responsivity

engaging

model

in

provides

criminal an

behaviour

overarching

again.

theoretical

The

Risk-Need-

framework

for

assessing and intervening with offenders (Risk Management Authority 2011). Risk factors are personal or environmental characteristics that are proven to increase the likelihood, imminence or seriousness of a negative outcome (Barry 2006). There are static and dynamic risk factors. Static factors are considered reliable indicators for risk as they remain the same. Some of these are age, sex and previous offences. Dynamic factors are less reliable as they are usually out of the individual’s control and may fluctuate and change. Examples of dynamic factors are income, employment and alcohol use. In Gavin’s case, his history of anti-social behaviour is a static risk factor. Since the age of 17 he has been committing offences every year and even more often in the past year. A dynamic risk factor is his alcohol use. It is evident that this is the main link between all offences that he has committed. Despite having limited it to weekends only, he still engages in anti-social behaviour when under the influence of alcohol. Gavin is in a positive relationship at the moment but has lost two important figures in his life – his dad and older brother and is not in a good relationship with his mother and stepfather. These issues can be considered a dynamic risk factor. Not much 7

information is evident about Gavin’s peer group and leisure activities. It would be useful to consider these aspects in terms of any anti-social associates and activities. When assessing risks in CJSW, it is important that social work values are upheld and strength, protective factors and abilities are taken into account (Scottish Government 2010a). Protective factors are the personal and environmental characteristics which decrease the likelihood of an adverse event or the seriousness of the outcomes. Similar to risk factors, protective factors can be static and dynamic. To begin with, Gavin shares that he is motivated to comply with community-based measures. Gavin’s willingness to collaborate might mitigate the risk of re-offending (McNeill, Raynor and Trotter, 2012). Also, he has been in stable long-term employment that he enjoys and would like to get further training in order to develop professionally. What is more, he is in a positive relationship and is self-determined to learn how to manage his feelings in order to keep this relationship. Gavin seems to have an understanding of the influence that alcohol has on his behaviour and has made an attempt to limit the use of it. Considering the assessment and risk assessment, a preferred sentencing option for Gavin would be a CPO with an alcohol treatment and offender supervision requirement. The alcohol treatment requirement is to address his alcohol misuse issues as it clearly contributes to his offending behaviour. Research shows evidence that the impact of community sentences has been rated positively compared to the impact of custodial sentences in relation to 8

people with an alcohol or drug problem (Armstrong and Weaver 2010). The offender supervision requirement is to promote Gavin’s rehabilitation and reduce the assessed risks.

9

SECTION 3 This section will provide an intervention plan for Gavin considering that the proposed sentencing option has been followed by the Sheriff. As a subject to a CPO with alcohol treatment and offender supervision requirement, Gavin must be seen at least weekly by a social worker called a supervising officer. The interventions undertaken in the work with Gavin must clearly and appropriately link with the key CJSW interventions (the ‘4 Rs’) in order to work towards achieving the outcomes of the NOS – protect the public, reduce reoffending and support desistance (Scottish Government 2010b), It is vital that the intervention strategy matches the level of risk that Gavin imposes, targets his criminogenic needs, recognises different learning styles and is adapted accordingly (McNeill 2009). It is also important to develop an intervention plan that supports or accelerates natural processes which encourage

desistance

(McNeill

2006).

For

Gavin these

can

be

maturational reform and social bonds. When developing an intervention strategy for Gavin, a personalised approach has to be adopted. An individualised multi-modal plan where strengths and weaknesses of different approaches are considered would be beneficial. The foundation of working with Gavin is building a positive relationship between him with the supervising officer. Even though he might be an ‘involuntary service user’, he has expressed willingness to comply with community-based measures which can be considered one of his strengths. The 10

first supervision session with Gavin can start by getting to know him and his life-history while adopting a non-judgemental attitude and expressing empathy where appropriate (Beckett, Maynard and Jordan 2017). Next

step

would

be

exploring

his

offending

behaviour

and

the

effectiveness of past court disposals. Gavin has mentioned that he did not benefit greatly from the anger management programme that he undertook in the past. This indicates a degree of understanding of what might work for him and is likely to enable him to be the expert of his life. In the beginning of the involvement with Gavin, a personalised plan, aim and objectives have to be decided upon in collaboration. These have to be proportionate and realistic considering the duration of the CPO. It is also vital to ensure that Gavin has a clear understanding of the plan, aim and objectives. They need to be tailored to him and address his criminogenic needs in order to encourage ownership of the process. Focusing on Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time limited (SMART) objectives would determine a feasible plan (Porporino 2013) Research on desistance shows evidence that resilient individuals with higher self-efficacy and better coping skills are more likely to desist from crime (Fitzpatrick 2011). Therefore, it is important to work on building these skills through a strength-based approach in order to achieve positive outcomes for Gavin. Forming positive social bonds, developing an understanding of the consequences of crime and building a relationship with the supervising officer are factors likely to support desistance.

11

Motivational interviewing skills might be helpful when working with Gavin. This is an approach based on collaboration which would allow the social worker to draw on Gavin’s internal motivation to change (McMurran 2007). In this process it is vital that Gavin is the one to present arguments for change. Leading questions such as “What concerns you about your behaviour?” can be used to elicit problem-recognition statements (Miller and Rollnick 2002). A motivational approach would also be helpful when discussing Gavin’s hopes for the future and his vision of himself. Developing his awareness of the discrepancy between where he currently is and where he would like to be is likely to increase ambivalence regarding his offending behaviour. However, motivational interviewing needs to be used alongside other methods of intervention to ensure a holistic approach. The use of CBT skills might be beneficial when supervising Gavin (Landenberger and Lipsey 2005)....