The Release and Community Supervision of Radicalised Offenders: Issues and Challenges that Can Influence Reintegration

Abstract

This paper explores the challenges that correctional authorities encounter when dealing with the transition of offenders back into the community after the completion of terrorism-related sentences or after demonstrating extremist views or associations. It draws on research conducted in the Australian state of New South Wales that examined mechanisms to support radicalised offenders exiting custody and completing a communitybased order (i.e., parole). Drawing on interviews (N = 55) conducted with correctional and other agency staff and terrorist inmates and parolees, the paper explores six issues: whether the radicalised cohort is unique in relation to supervision needs; engaging families; information sharing; assessing risk; the implications of the broader environment surrounding terrorism; and professional training and knowledge needs. Qualitative data indicate that radicalised offenders can have similar reintegration needs to mainstream offenders and that family assistance, while important, has some drawbacks. The application of intelligence in the supervision context is highlighted, as well as its limitations. Data illustrate the emerging practices and practical limitations of risk assessment. Results show how the broader social and political environment can influence supervision processes, with topics related to staff training canvassed. Broader lessons for policy and practice on the community supervision and reintegration of radicalised offenders are highlighted.

PROTOCOL: Criminal justice interventions for preventing terrorism and radicalisation: An evidence and gap map

“…Training initiatives and awareness programs with corrective services staff focused on the detection and prevention of both radicalisation and violent extremism (Vejvodová & Kolář, 2020). Re‐entry programs focused on building pro‐social networks and access to support services to assist with prisoner release (Cherney, 2021). Multi‐agency initiatives that promote information sharing and intelligence gathering between agencies (Knight, 2009; Lewandowski, 2012).…”

Releasing prisoners during COVID-19: the impact of the support for the early release, perceived insecurity and political orientation on attitudes towards released prisoners in Portugal

“…Support for social inclusion might increase, if authorities succeed in lowering such perceptions, hence contributing to a decrease in public demand for compensatory control strategies. Interestingly, promotion of government programs aimed to assist ex-offenders to rebuild their lives instead of a focus on punitive surveillance and catching violations (Phelps, 2019), might create conditions for released prisoners to demonstrate their ability and willingness to reintegrate themselves (Cherney, 2021). To fight the spiral cycle of exclusion, governments may need to work on strategies aimed at restraining feelings of insecurity associated with the presence of ex-prisoners and to prevent the emergence of intense (and abusive) control attitudes directed at ex-prisoners.…”

PROTOCOL: Multiagency programmes with police as a partner for reducing radicalisation to violence

“…Multiagency partnerships may disrupt pathways from radicalisation to violence by collectively addressing multiple risk factors in a holistic and coordinated manner (Butt & Tuck, 2014). The multiagency approach to tackling violent extremism may be effective because it fosters a coordination of effort (Crawford, 1999;Kelman et al, 2013), draws from a broad range of expertise (Crawford, 1999), allows for information and intelligence sharing (Cherney, 2018;Murphy, 2008;Slayton, 2000) and enables the pooling of resources (Crawford, 1999;Sestoft, Hansen, & Christensen, 2017). El-Said (2015) describes a range of different ways that multiagency partnerships are created: by formal and informal arrangements, such as legislative or regulatory frameworks, memoranda of understanding or policy standards stipulating channels for information sharing or better interpersonal relations between agencies (see also Koehler, 2016).…”