Offenders, Deviants or Patients?

Prins, Herschel

doi:10.4324/9780203854877

Cited by 16 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The aim of diversion was not always clear or straightforward, that is did it mean diversion from prosecution, or diversion to care and treatment by health and social services while prosecution continues? Unresolved tensions inherent across both the continuum of ordered−disordered behaviour and that of law abiding−law breaking behaviour acted to confuse the aims of CJLDS (Peay, 2007; Prins, 2010). Notions of care and treatment are usually reserved for those who are ‘disordered’, while demands for protection and punishment exist for those who offend.…”

Section: Challenges For the First Wavementioning

confidence: 99%

Criminal Justice Diversion and Liaison Services: A Path to Success?

Dyer

2012

Social Policy & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The original aim of these services appeared straightforward: 'that mentally disordered offenders needing care and treatment should receive it from the health and personal social services rather than in custodial care' (Department of Health and Home Office, 1992: 7). However, this was not a simple or straightforward area. Service users could include those with mental illness, learning disability, personality disorder, substance misuse and more vague 'mental health problems'. Individual clients could be acutely ill (no previous psychiatric history), chronically ill (have a history of illness) or severely ill (come under the Mental Health Act 1983, now 2007). They could also be non-offenders (at risk of offending), alleged offenders (not convicted) or convicted offenders. Consequently, the practice of diversion services developed so that it could include diversion away from the criminal justice system (that is, not prosecuted but rather responded to differently), diversion away from custody (that is, finding a non-penal disposal) or diversion to services which would best meet need without necessarily requiring diversion from prosecution or even custody (that is, as a way of surfacing need and accessing services) (James, 1996; National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, 1993;Joseph, 1991).Diversion services and their client group were negotiating a complex multi-agency offender health pathway -different people were being 'processed' in different ways with different outcomes. Failure to understand or support this complexity and the concomitant need for a patient-centred approach to the development of a coordinated pathway Wendy Dyer has meant that professional interests (competition both within services and between agencies in terms of for example philosophical approaches, governance issues, budget and resources and priorities) in planning services have dominated. As a result, the fortunes of many CJLDS have waned -many services no longer exist and others are no longer recognisable as diversion services. The question is are we any more likely to witness the development of 'successful, sustainable' client-centred services the second time round? This article will examine the difficulties that occurred with the first wave of diversion services and consider the likelihood that the second wave will prove to be more successful. Background -the first wave

show abstract

Section: Challenges For the First Wavementioning

confidence: 99%

Criminal Justice Diversion and Liaison Services: A Path to Success?

Dyer

2012

Social Policy & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But it is better for the law in this area to be somewhat sympathetic to the plight of an abused spouse rather than the anger of a jealous one. Diminished responsibility was considered to be applied very inconsistently due to a lack of clarity in its definition of an ‘abnormality of mind’, and whether that abnormality substantially impaired the defendant (see Prins 19 for a discussion of this).…”

Section: The Long Process Of Reformmentioning

confidence: 99%

Homicide law reform: Coke v Bumble – revisited and reassessed

Hodgkinson

Prins

2011

Med Sci Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This contribution is a sequel to an earlier paper in the journal by the second author. It examines the Government's remit to the Law Commission to suggest revision to the law relating to homicide, and the eventual somewhat muted implementation in the Coroners and Justice Act of 2009. These changes to the law of homicide, and more specifically the revisions to the partial defences of diminished responsibility and provocation, are critically reviewed, and are discussed in light of the future of homicide law reform. It is argued that more radical reform to the substantive law of homicide is needed, but this article also discusses the problems of implementing this more radical reform given the Government's reluctance to remove the mandatory life sentence for murder.

show abstract

“…(a) provoked; or (b) acting in pursuance of a suicide pact; or (c) suffering from diminished responsibility. (For discussion of some of the psycho-social problems of determining diminishment of criminal responsibility see Prins, 2005a, Ch 1). (2) Other examples of unlawful killing are:…”

Section: Current Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Motivated by delusional beliefs and sometimes by hallucinatory experiences (see 5 above). For further discussion see Prins (2005a) (b) Missionary. Motivated by a need to exterminate a particular group of people -for example prostitutes, as in Peter Sutcliffe's case.…”

Section: Contd Overmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…And, in particular, where matters of disordered mental states are concerned, it can lead to somewhat unseemly 'battles' in court between psychiatry on the one hand and the law on the other. (The case of R v Sutcliffe being a good case in point (see Prins 2005a). Attempts to reform the law of homicide, and in particular that of murder, are not new.…”

Section: A Shorter Version Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation