Community Practitioners in Criminal Courts: Risk Logics and Multiply-Disadvantaged Individuals

Abstract

The role community practitioners play in lower criminal courts has traditionally been overlooked in the socio-legal literature. In this article, I analyse how they use discretion and contribute to courts' knowledge about and understanding of the problems clients (the accused) face. I focus on how they manoeuvre the courts, offering supports, service or housing; 'vouching' for or documenting progress, good character, compliance and potential; or educating judicial actors about social context, or therapeutic perspectives around mental health, substance use or trauma. I advance understandings of how nonjustice actors interpret and use risk logics, while contributing medical, cultural and sociological knowledge that can improve practices in lower criminal courts, particularly by destabilizing assumptions about criminogenic risk management, poverty and choice.

‘It's Kinda Punishment’: Tandem Logics and Penultimate Power in the Penal Voluntary Sector for Canadian Youth

“…Even within these mandated YPVS programmes, assessments from YPVS workers can contribute to how youth are processed in the justice system. Importantly, more research is required on how penal voluntary sector work shapes decision making by police, courts, and probation (Quirouette ). An important theme in this article is that even YPVS workers are not confident about the impact they have on the youth criminal justice system.…”

Reducing Prison Sentencing Through Pre‐Sentence Reports? Why the Quasi‐Market Logic of ‘Selling Alternatives to Custody’ Fails

“…The provision of Reports may be called for by the court at its discretion, or, mandated by law in certain kinds of cases, as has increasingly been the case in both England and Wales and in Scotland. The provision of such Reports (which go by different names across time and jurisdictions), has become both increasingly prevalent and pivotal to sentence decision making in a range of jurisdictions, including Belgium (for example, Beyens and Scheirs ); Canada (for example, Cole and Angus ; Hannah‐Moffat ; Quirouette ); Denmark (Wandall ); New Zealand (Deane ); the USA (for example, Fruchtman and Sigler ); England and Wales (for example, Gelsthorpe and Raynor ; Jacobson and Hough ; Robinson , ); Ireland (Carr and Maguire ); Australia (for example, Hickey and Spangaro ); and Scotland (for example, Tata ; Tata et al . ).…”

“…The provision of Reports may be called for by the court at its discretion, or, mandated by law in certain kinds of cases, as has increasingly been the case in both England and Wales and in Scotland. The provision of such Reports (which go by different names across time and jurisdictions), 6 has become both increasingly prevalent and pivotal to sentence decision making in a range of jurisdictions, including Belgium (for example, Beyens and Scheirs 2010); Canada (for example, Cole and Angus 2003;Hannah-Moffat 2010;Quirouette 2017); Denmark (Wandall 2010); New Zealand (Deane 2000); the USA (for example, Fruchtman and Sigler 1999); England and Wales (for example, Gelsthorpe and Raynor 1995;Jacobson and Hough 2007;Robinson 2017Robinson , 2018; Ireland (Carr and Maguire 2017); Australia (for example, Hickey and Spangaro 1995); and Scotland (for example, Tata 2010; Tata et al 2008). Especially in nominally adversarial systems in the lower and intermediate courts, where guilty pleas obviate the need for an evidentially-contested trial, in considering a custodial sentence, the court will typically hear little or nothing of substance from, or about, the defendant, except through the information garnered through a Report.…”

Risk and punishment: The recent history and uncertain future of actuarial, algorithmic, and “evidence‐based” penal techniques

“…For instance, risk tools guide or even determine an array of criminal justice practices and decisions, such as pretrial detention, consideration for diversion programs, prison security level, the provision of correctional services, and case plans and supervision levels within probation and parole (Andrews et al, 2006;Desmaris & Singh, 2013;Goodman, 2008;Hannah-Moffat, 2010Hörnqvist, 2010;Kehl et al, 2017;Kemshall, 2011;Kerrison, 2018;R. J. Miller, 2014;O'Malley, 2010;Phelps, 2017;Quirouette, 2017;Rudes, Viglione, & Meyer, 2016;Taxman & Caudy, 2015).…”