No abstract

No abstract

This paper discusses the findings of a ten‐year study of filicide in Victoria, Australia, using the data from selected case files held in the Victorian coroner's office for the period 2000–09. The study sought to examine whether separation is a factor in filicide cases, as well as the role of other factors, such as domestic violence and mental illness. Also, the study sought to identify whether filicide perpetrators had contact with support services, including family and friends, general practitioners, mental health services and child protection services, in order to ascertain how these services might more appropriately identify those families most at risk prior to the filicide. The study found that while separation was a factor identified in a significant number of cases, more cases analysed showed evidence of mental illness, mainly depression. These findings suggest the need for improved strategies in preventing filicide by identifying risk factors and improving service responses for victims prior to these tragic events. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key Practitioner Messages: Filicide is uncommon but does occur. Perpetrators fall into three main groups and a different scenario is associated with each group. Associated (risk) factors were found to be mental illness (especially depression), separation, domestic violence and substance abuse. Any client/patient with mental illness and partner separation should be probed for thoughts of harm. Engagement with services is a protective factor.

This article discusses findings from an ethnographic study of a bail and remand court in Victoria, Australia. Through a focus on the sensory dimensions of forced movements within and through the bail court, the article contributes to the burgeoning sub-field of sensory criminology and develops the concept of ‘carceral churn’. The article argues that the bail court’s churn reproduces criminal and carceral subjects and is implicated in a project of carceral buildup. The churn of the bail court involves forms of mobility and exchange via the inter- and intra-carceral spaces that variously dull, distort, deprive or assault the senses with oppressive effects. This includes both ‘new’ and ‘old’ penal technologies such as holding cells, the custody dock, AV links and court-prison transport. The analysis of sensory violence challenges the notion that court ‘efficiency’ can improve justice experiences and outcomes and instead calls for increased attention to the harms and lethality that flow from carceral churn left un-checked.