Vulnerability & policing

Matthew Ball1, Lorana Bartels2, Isabelle Bartkowiak-Théron3, Angela Dwyer3, Patricia Easteal2, Michele Grossman4, Jackie Hallam5, Roberta Julian3, Nicole L Asquith6, Leanne Sargent7

1 QUT
2 Uni of Canberra
3 UTas
4 VU
5 ATCD, Tasmania
6 WSU
7 Victoria Police

Since 2014, academics and policing scholars from across Australia have been working together as part of the Vulnerability, Resilience and Policing Research Consortium to progress policy and practice innovation. In this panel session, members of the VRPRC will discuss the work of the consortium, and the advantages of working in collaboration with policing organisations on these issues. Panel members will also discuss their current research on policing vulnerability.

 

Vulnerability, Resilience & Policing Research Consortium
– Nicole L Asquith

Re-thinking ‘vulnerability’ in the context of ‘diversity’ – cross-cultural reform in policing education and training in Australia
– Michele Grossman & Leanne Sargent

Exploring law enforcement and public health (LEPH) as a collective impact initiative
– Roberta Julian, Isabelle Bartkowiak-Théron & Jackie Hallam

Balancing visibility and invisibility in LGBTI police liaison programs in three Australian states
– Angela Dwyer and Matthew Ball

Women prisoners as vulnerable victims of sexual abuse
– Lorana Bartels and Patricia Easteal

Policing precariousness; Accounting for ontological and situational vulnerability
– Isabelle Bartkowiak-Théron & Nicole L Asquith

 

Biography

Nicole L Asquith is the Associate Professor of Policing and Criminal Justice at Western Sydney University, Research Associate with the Sexualities and Genders Research Network, University Associate with the Tasmanian Institute of Law Enforcement Studies and Co-Director of the Vulnerability, Resilience and Policing Research Consortium. Nicole’s research is focussed on the policing of vulnerable people.

 

Vulnerability & policing

Matthew Ball1, Lorana Bartels2, Isabelle Bartkowiak-Théron3, Angela Dwyer3, Patricia Easteal2, Michele Grossman4, Jackie Hallam5, Roberta Julian3, Nicole L Asquith6, Leanne Sargent7

1 QUT
2 Uni of Canberra
3 UTas
4 VU
5 ATCD, Tasmania
6 WSU
7 Victoria Police

Since 2014, academics and policing scholars from across Australia have been working together as part of the Vulnerability, Resilience and Policing Research Consortium to progress policy and practice innovation. In this panel session, members of the VRPRC will discuss the work of the consortium, and the advantages of working in collaboration with policing organisations on these issues. Panel members will also discuss their current research on policing vulnerability.

 

Vulnerability, Resilience & Policing Research Consortium
– Nicole L Asquith

Re-thinking ‘vulnerability’ in the context of ‘diversity’ – cross-cultural reform in policing education and training in Australia
– Michele Grossman & Leanne Sargent

Exploring law enforcement and public health (LEPH) as a collective impact initiative
– Roberta Julian, Isabelle Bartkowiak-Théron & Jackie Hallam

Balancing visibility and invisibility in LGBTI police liaison programs in three Australian states
– Angela Dwyer and Matthew Ball

Women prisoners as vulnerable victims of sexual abuse
– Lorana Bartels and Patricia Easteal

Policing precariousness; Accounting for ontological and situational vulnerability
– Isabelle Bartkowiak-Théron & Nicole L Asquith

 

Biography

Nicole L Asquith is the Associate Professor of Policing and Criminal Justice at Western Sydney University, Research Associate with the Sexualities and Genders Research Network, University Associate with the Tasmanian Institute of Law Enforcement Studies and Co-Director of the Vulnerability, Resilience and Policing Research Consortium. Nicole’s research is focussed on the policing of vulnerable people.

 

Diversion and ‘what works’ in post-release: Improving the evidence

Dr Ruth McCausland 1*, Dr Mindy Sotiri 2, Ms Alison Churchill 3, Professor Eileen Baldry 4

School of Social Sciences, UNSW
Community Restorative Centre
Community Restorative Centre
School of Social Sciences, UNSW

‘What gets measured gets managed’: The problem with evaluation of post-release diversionary program

*corresponding author: ruth.mccausland@unsw.edu.au

There is widespread acknowledgement that diverting people into appropriate services and support upon release from prison can reduce their likelihood of reincarceration. Approaches to diversion in Australia have been influenced by various criminological concepts, but are generally premised on the notion that certain vulnerable groups are over-represented in prisons due to factors such as drug and alcohol addiction, mental illness and cognitive impairment, and that diverting people away from the criminal justice system into appropriate therapeutic programs can reduce their offending. Governments are increasingly funding post-release programs based on a risk/needs/responsivity model, focused on individual behavioural change in the first few months after release from prison. The effectiveness of such programs is measured by recidivism rates as recorded by local court data, with randomised controlled trials considered the ‘gold standard’ in evaluation in this area.

At a time when Australia’s prison population is at its largest on record and continuing to grow, this paper will posit that evaluation of post-release programs – and indeed, the notion of diversion itself – requires more robust interrogation, nuanced metrics and consideration of broader policy contexts to better serve its stated purpose. Qualitative research conducted with policy makers, crime prevention program managers and evaluators will be reported on that suggests that post-release diversion as it is conceptualised and implemented in Australia is adhered to existing structures of penality, perpetuating rather than reducing the over-representation of vulnerable groups in prison. Narrow quantifiable measures of impact emerge as not just a mechanism of reporting, but as determining policy. What is measurable not only gets managed, it has become what is perceived to matter. This paper will conclude by proposing alternative approaches to diversion and evaluation that could better respond to the needs of vulnerable people with complex support needs leaving prison.

Best practice in community-based reintegration

In 2013 Corrective Services NSW committed close to $10 million over three years to fund community sector organisations to provide ‘evidence based’ post-release services.  The new raft of programs differentiated itself from previously funded projects in terms of scope and geographic reach, but more significantly in terms of attachment to a particular (RNR/criminogenic needs) theoretical model.  Similarly, in June this year, again in NSW, a new round of justice funding was announced targeting recidivism amongst people who cycle in and out of prison frequently and for short periods of time. Once again, government has specified that the community sector organisations providing the service must adopt an ‘evidence based’ criminogenic needs approach.  While NSW serves as a recent case-study of an enthusiastic adopter of this model, this is a trend that has been replicated in many jurisdictions.

This paper will challenge the premise that RNR and criminogenic needs research offer up any significant ‘evidence’ in terms of ‘what works’ in community-based reintegration, particularly when working with populations with multiple and complex needs. This paper will also offer (from the perspective of a service provider) an overview of what being funded to prioritise this approach (ahead of more holistic models) actually looks like on the ground in terms of the pragmatics of service delivery.

Drawing on findings from a recently completed Churchill Fellowship research trip into ‘best-practice’ in community based reintegration programs in the US and the UK, and data analysis of the outcomes of over 300 clients who participated in a (no-longer-funded) holistic long-term program run through the Community Restorative Centre in Sydney, this paper will argue framing (and funding) reintegration programs only in terms of individual rehabilitation is deeply problematic.  It proposes a best–practice model that places structural predictors of recidivism at the heart of service delivery design.

Imprisonment, Reintegration and the NDIS: The key challenges of providing comprehensive post-release services to people with disabilities

There is growing evidence around the significant proportion of people in prison who have cognitive disabilities (intellectual disability, acquired brain injury, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD). However people with cognitive disabilities who are at risk of criminal justice system involvement or who are already entrenched in the criminal justice system will have even less access to specialist community-based services under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) than they have in the past. From the experience of managing a specialist post-release service, it is apparent that without a specific focus on meeting the unique needs of this group, they are more likely to be managed in criminal justice system settings (primarily prisons) rather than supported under the NDIS. While the funding for the NDIS is a Commonwealth responsibility, the financial burden for providing services to this group will ultimately remain with state governments, particularly with the justice system.

This presentation will unpack some of the key challenges in terms of post-release service delivery within the existing parameters of the NDIS for this population. This includes the separation of disability support needs and other support needs when developing funded support packages, the absence of involvement in the NDIS of key agencies of criminal justice, and the complex task of enabling choice and control for populations in the post-release context who have so regularly spent their lives without access to either.

A holistic, community-based approach to post-release diversion for people with complex support needs

Policy and legislative changes over the past 20 years have had negative and disproportionate effects on Indigenous persons, women and those with mental and cognitive disability who are poor, disadvantaged and racialised, thereby increasing their rates of imprisonment. It is apparent that the failure to adequately support vulnerable people in the community has lead to the criminalisation of certain groups and contributed to prisons bursting with people with multiple diagnoses and disabilities, conceptualised here as ‘complex support needs’ created by poor system and service design. However there is a severe lack of appropriate rehabilitative and therapeutic options available for these vulnerable groups post-release. This paper will report on an innovative methodological study involving quantitative and qualitative investigation of the post-release experiences of people with mental and cognitive disability, with a particular focus on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The period after release from prison is a particularly vulnerable and difficult time for people with disability. There is a clear imperative based on research and evaluation in this field for the provision of immediate and intensive support, especially with regard to specialist long-term accommodation, wrap around services and case management. Yet with the introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), there is a concern that there may be even less support for many disadvantaged people with disability after release from prison. Drawing on national and international research, a holistic, community-based model for post-release diversion for people with complex support needs will be articulated, highlighting the particular considerations in relation to Indigenous women and men in regional and remote areas of Australia. The presentation will conclude with recommendations setting out the principles, policies and programs required to respond to the imprisonment of some of the most vulnerable members of our community.

Biography

Ruth McCausland is Research Fellow and Eileen Baldry is Professor of Criminology in the School of Social Sciences at UNSW. Mindy Sotiri is Program Director and Alison Churchill is CEO at the Community Restorative Centre.

Diversion and ‘what works’ in post-release: Improving the evidence

Dr Ruth McCausland 1*, Dr Mindy Sotiri 2, Ms Alison Churchill 3, Professor Eileen Baldry 4

School of Social Sciences, UNSW
Community Restorative Centre
Community Restorative Centre
School of Social Sciences, UNSW

‘What gets measured gets managed’: The problem with evaluation of post-release diversionary program

*corresponding author: ruth.mccausland@unsw.edu.au

There is widespread acknowledgement that diverting people into appropriate services and support upon release from prison can reduce their likelihood of reincarceration. Approaches to diversion in Australia have been influenced by various criminological concepts, but are generally premised on the notion that certain vulnerable groups are over-represented in prisons due to factors such as drug and alcohol addiction, mental illness and cognitive impairment, and that diverting people away from the criminal justice system into appropriate therapeutic programs can reduce their offending. Governments are increasingly funding post-release programs based on a risk/needs/responsivity model, focused on individual behavioural change in the first few months after release from prison. The effectiveness of such programs is measured by recidivism rates as recorded by local court data, with randomised controlled trials considered the ‘gold standard’ in evaluation in this area.

At a time when Australia’s prison population is at its largest on record and continuing to grow, this paper will posit that evaluation of post-release programs – and indeed, the notion of diversion itself – requires more robust interrogation, nuanced metrics and consideration of broader policy contexts to better serve its stated purpose. Qualitative research conducted with policy makers, crime prevention program managers and evaluators will be reported on that suggests that post-release diversion as it is conceptualised and implemented in Australia is adhered to existing structures of penality, perpetuating rather than reducing the over-representation of vulnerable groups in prison. Narrow quantifiable measures of impact emerge as not just a mechanism of reporting, but as determining policy. What is measurable not only gets managed, it has become what is perceived to matter. This paper will conclude by proposing alternative approaches to diversion and evaluation that could better respond to the needs of vulnerable people with complex support needs leaving prison.

Best practice in community-based reintegration

In 2013 Corrective Services NSW committed close to $10 million over three years to fund community sector organisations to provide ‘evidence based’ post-release services.  The new raft of programs differentiated itself from previously funded projects in terms of scope and geographic reach, but more significantly in terms of attachment to a particular (RNR/criminogenic needs) theoretical model.  Similarly, in June this year, again in NSW, a new round of justice funding was announced targeting recidivism amongst people who cycle in and out of prison frequently and for short periods of time. Once again, government has specified that the community sector organisations providing the service must adopt an ‘evidence based’ criminogenic needs approach.  While NSW serves as a recent case-study of an enthusiastic adopter of this model, this is a trend that has been replicated in many jurisdictions.

This paper will challenge the premise that RNR and criminogenic needs research offer up any significant ‘evidence’ in terms of ‘what works’ in community-based reintegration, particularly when working with populations with multiple and complex needs. This paper will also offer (from the perspective of a service provider) an overview of what being funded to prioritise this approach (ahead of more holistic models) actually looks like on the ground in terms of the pragmatics of service delivery.

Drawing on findings from a recently completed Churchill Fellowship research trip into ‘best-practice’ in community based reintegration programs in the US and the UK, and data analysis of the outcomes of over 300 clients who participated in a (no-longer-funded) holistic long-term program run through the Community Restorative Centre in Sydney, this paper will argue framing (and funding) reintegration programs only in terms of individual rehabilitation is deeply problematic.  It proposes a best–practice model that places structural predictors of recidivism at the heart of service delivery design.

Imprisonment, Reintegration and the NDIS: The key challenges of providing comprehensive post-release services to people with disabilities

There is growing evidence around the significant proportion of people in prison who have cognitive disabilities (intellectual disability, acquired brain injury, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD). However people with cognitive disabilities who are at risk of criminal justice system involvement or who are already entrenched in the criminal justice system will have even less access to specialist community-based services under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) than they have in the past. From the experience of managing a specialist post-release service, it is apparent that without a specific focus on meeting the unique needs of this group, they are more likely to be managed in criminal justice system settings (primarily prisons) rather than supported under the NDIS. While the funding for the NDIS is a Commonwealth responsibility, the financial burden for providing services to this group will ultimately remain with state governments, particularly with the justice system.

This presentation will unpack some of the key challenges in terms of post-release service delivery within the existing parameters of the NDIS for this population. This includes the separation of disability support needs and other support needs when developing funded support packages, the absence of involvement in the NDIS of key agencies of criminal justice, and the complex task of enabling choice and control for populations in the post-release context who have so regularly spent their lives without access to either.

A holistic, community-based approach to post-release diversion for people with complex support needs

Policy and legislative changes over the past 20 years have had negative and disproportionate effects on Indigenous persons, women and those with mental and cognitive disability who are poor, disadvantaged and racialised, thereby increasing their rates of imprisonment. It is apparent that the failure to adequately support vulnerable people in the community has lead to the criminalisation of certain groups and contributed to prisons bursting with people with multiple diagnoses and disabilities, conceptualised here as ‘complex support needs’ created by poor system and service design. However there is a severe lack of appropriate rehabilitative and therapeutic options available for these vulnerable groups post-release. This paper will report on an innovative methodological study involving quantitative and qualitative investigation of the post-release experiences of people with mental and cognitive disability, with a particular focus on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The period after release from prison is a particularly vulnerable and difficult time for people with disability. There is a clear imperative based on research and evaluation in this field for the provision of immediate and intensive support, especially with regard to specialist long-term accommodation, wrap around services and case management. Yet with the introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), there is a concern that there may be even less support for many disadvantaged people with disability after release from prison. Drawing on national and international research, a holistic, community-based model for post-release diversion for people with complex support needs will be articulated, highlighting the particular considerations in relation to Indigenous women and men in regional and remote areas of Australia. The presentation will conclude with recommendations setting out the principles, policies and programs required to respond to the imprisonment of some of the most vulnerable members of our community.

Biography

Ruth McCausland is Research Fellow and Eileen Baldry is Professor of Criminology in the School of Social Sciences at UNSW. Mindy Sotiri is Program Director and Alison Churchill is CEO at the Community Restorative Centre.

Beyond borders as risk

Dr Marie Segrave1,  Rebecca Powell2,  Dr Synnove Jahnsen3,  Dr Kat Hadjimatheou4,  Dr Sanja Milivojevic5

Senior Lecturer in Criminology at Monash University and a DECRA Fellow (2014-2018, Irregular Migration Labour Exploitation)
Managing-Director of the Border Crossing Observatory and a PhD Candidate in Criminology at Monash University
Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Research Department of The Norwegian Police University College
Research Fellow with the University of Warwick’s (UK) Interdisciplinary Ethics Research Group
Lecturer in Criminology at LaTrobe University

 

 

‘Unlawful and exploited: exploring irregular migrant labour in Australia’

Dr Marie Segrave*

*corresponding author: marie.segrave@monash.edu

This papers presents some of the preliminary findings from a DECRA project, in progress, focused on unlawful migrant labour exploitation in Australia. It will identify some emerging findings regarding the impact of border and other regulations to create and sustain vulnerability of non citizens. It will map some of the practices that seek to support vulnerable workers, and victims of exploitation. In particular it will consider the bifurcation of the welfare-driven human trafficking response and the remuneration-focused Fair Work efforts that have come to the fore in recent cases of labour exploitation and consider the impact of these. The paper will finally consider the ways in which challenges to the border and labour regime are emerging, and the implications of these for reconsidering how we understand where intervention is best focused to prevent exploitation.

Construction of risk in the s501 visa cancellation pathway towards removal

Rebecca Powell*

*corresponding author: rebecca.powell@monash.edu

Following the legislative changes to s501 of the Migration Act in December 2014, there has been a dramatic upward surge of visa cancellations under s501 of the Migration Act putting a large number of convicted non-citizens at risk of removal from Australia.  Criminal deportation is an example of “punitive pre-emption” (Weber 2013) in a “crimmigration” (Stumpf 2006) context which constructs convicted non-citizens as likely future offenders. This pre-emptive approach to the removal of convicted non-citizens from Australia is problematic because the individual is often perceived and treated as a bundle of risk with limited regard for their personal circumstance and ties to Australia. Protection of the Australian community from any unacceptable harm is at the forefront of the decision making process and can come at any cost, including at the cost of human rights to the individual (Zedner 2010). The individual is therefore left carrying the full weight and consequence of their offending with limited avenues for appeal. Risk is constructed in the s501 visa cancellation decision making process and AAT review process, through a future orientated, pre-crime, approach (McCulloch and Wilson 2016), where convicted non-citizens are treated as “presumptive offenders or enemies” largely on the basis of their criminal history and the nature and seriousness of their criminal conduct. This paper will examine the construction of risk in this visa cancellation and review process and the impact it has on the human rights of the individual placed on a pathway towards removal as a result of the cancellation decision. It will consider the need for a more systematic and human rights based visa cancellation review process that puts the individual and their circumstances, including ties to Australia, at the centre of decision making.

Expecting and preventing crime: Scandinavian approaches to Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs

Dr Synnove Jahnsen*

*corresponding author: synnove.jahnsen@phs.no

This paper contributes to the growing literature on organized crime prevention by examining how crime associated with Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs (OMCGS) is understood and approached in Scandinavia. The author has analyzed a selection of open sourced strategic documents and trend reports from Norway, Sweden and Denmark in the period 2010 – 2015. This material is supplied with Europol threat assessments in the same period and a selection of available research, popular literature and media representations. Different understandings of the phenomena are described, in the form of past experiences and expected future developments. Equally, the response of the criminal justice systems and other innovative approaches are outlined. The aim is to provide insight into the challenges associated with OMCGs and Scandinavian efforts to prevent crime by disruption of OMCG activities, deterring recruitment and facilitate disassociation and desistance. Although all Scandinavian states seem to prioritize disrupting OMCG activity through domestic police enforcement as well as engagement exclusionary practices of members of foreign OMCG, only Denmark provides a systematic and national overview of their experiences and development of what they refer to as a more “holistic approach”. As the article shows the Danish strategy against OMCG is politically and institutionally intertwined with more overarching social integration programs targeting migrant youths and communities in efforts to deter gang related violence.

Vulnerability, consent, and the human rights approach to trafficking at the border

Dr Kat Hadjimatheou*

*corresponding author: K.Hadjimatheou@warwick.ac.uk

In this paper we examine the ‘human rights approach’ to trafficking in the context of UK border practices. Drawing on in-depth interviews with a Safeguarding and Anti-Trafficking (SAT) team at Heathrow Airport, we explore the challenges border officers experience in their attempts to fulfill their newly-acquired humanitarian duties under Modern Slavery legislation. We identify and analyse two such challenges in particular, both of which arise from constraints to the legal powers of border officers to enact SAT interventions on the ground. The first of these is EU Freedom of Movement. We argue that EU freedom of movement is fundamentally in tension with the human rights approach to trafficking. This tension arises because the latter requires that vulnerability override or ‘trump’ immigration status as the primary basis for sorting individuals at the border, whereas the former insists on exceptionalism for EU nationals. The second challenge arises from the requirement for border officers to obtain consent to referrals for assistance from victims, a requirement we call the ‘consent constraint’. We explore the significance of the consent constraint, the implicit judgments it entails about the autonomy of victims of trafficking, and its place in a human rights approach to trafficking. We conclude by calling for greater recognition of the limits to border officer capacities to implement the human rights approach to trafficking at the border, and further empirical and philosophical research into the consent constraint.

Beyond borders? Trafficking and instant digital communication technologies

Dr Sanja Milivojevic*

*corresponding author: rebecca.powell@monash.edu; marie.segrave@monash.edu

This paper will consider cross-border exploitation, specifically human trafficking, and the role of information technologies (supposedly) play in both facilitation of, and responding to such exploitation. Internationally, development of new information technologies, such as the Internet, mobile telephony or social media garnered significant attention as a potential new platform for human trafficking; however the reality on the ground belies such concerns. What we see, nevertheless, are a range of ‘protectionist’ measures introduced online to protect potential victims and apprehend offenders, and efforts to increasingly prevent migration and/or ‘rescue’ victims from sex industry as a form of preventing future victimisation. This paper will examine the utilization of technology supposedly to enable and facilitate cross border migration, prevent exploitation and enhance counter-trafficking measures, and identify key concerns regarding the impact of these practices, particularly in relation to efforts that are aimed to reduce gendered violence and exploitation but which may in fact be enabling or sustaining such forms of violence.  This paper challenges the notion that international cross border trafficking is an increasingly ‘borderless’ crime, and poses important questions about the intersection of border regimes across a range of spheres, particularly immigration and technology

 

Biography

Marie Segrave is a Senior Lecturer in Criminology at Monash University and a DECRA Fellow (2014-2018, Irregular Migration Labour Exploitation). Marie has undertaken extensive research examining the intersection of gender, violence, vulnerability and citizenship. She leads the human trafficking and labour exploitation research agenda within the Border Observatory. She is also currently working with InTouch Multicultural Centre Against Family Violence to undertake a comprehensive review of the impact of immigration status on risk and support for CALD women.

Family violence risk assessment in Australia

Jude McCulloch1, Kate Fitz-Gibbon1, Marie Segrave1, JaneMaree Maher1

School of Social Sciences, Monash University

Risking women’s lives: The contrasting approaches to the risk of family violence and ‘terrorism’.

Jude McCulloch*

*Jude McCulloch: jude.mcculloch@monash.edu

Focusing on Australia this paper compares and contrasts the approach to the risk of ‘terrorism’ and family violence. It briefly describes the rise in risk as a way of understanding and addressing social problems and crime generally before examining the rise of risk as a framework for addressing family violence as a gendered crime. It then considers the relationship between risk and security and the shift in the way risk has been operationalised in the counter terrorism arena post 9/11. It maintains that while risk is a key driver of policy and legislative change in the fields of both family violence and terrorism the way risk is understood and mobilised in these fields is vastly different. Terrorism is dealt with in a precautionary or pre-crime frame while family violence continues to be dealt with in a more traditional post-crime frame. This illustrates the risk of gendered crime and family violence in particular is a risk that continues to be more tolerated that the risk of terrorism. While family violence homicides in Australia and other western countries (the majority of which involve women as victims) far outweigh deaths from terrorism the risk of terrorism is treated as more significant than that of family violence. It contends that these different constructions of risk and the exclusion of family violence from the national security agenda reflect and reinforce gendered notions of risk and value.

Presenter Bio:

Jude McCulloch is Professor of Criminology at Monash University in the School of Social Sciences. Her most research focuses on ‘pre-crime’, risk, counter terrorism and family violence. Along with four other researchers from the School of Social Sciences she has recently undertaken a review of the Victorian Family Violence Common Risk Assessment and Risk Management Framework for the Department of Health and Human Services. She has published more than eighty chapters and journal articles, five authored books, three edited collections, edited special editions of journals and written for major newspapers, magazines and practitioner journals. Her latest books are Pre-Crime: Pre-emption, Precaution and Future Crime (with Dean Wilson), State Crime and Resistance (eds Elizabeth Stanely and Jude McCulloch) and International Students and Crime (Forbes-Mewett and McCulloch).

Family violence risk assessment in Australia: Examining the merits of a national framework

Kate Fitz-Gibbon*

* Kate Fitz-Gibbon: kate.fitzgibbon@monash.edu

Improved risk assessment and management has become a key focus of strategies for reducing family violence and its impacts. In Australia there is no single ‘best practice’ tool or approach to actuarial or structured risk assessment in family violence generally or intimate partner violence in particular. Common risk assessment frameworks have been introduced in Victoria, Western Australia and Northern Territory while the remaining states adopt a range of diverse approaches to assessing and managing risk in family violence cases. Recent reviews of the family violence system across Australia and state Coronial Inquests findings have revealed shortcomings in current approaches to identifying, assessing and managing risk of family violence. In 2016 the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Advisory Panel Report on Reducing violence against women and their children recommended that a national risk assessment framework be developed to provide a more consistent, integrated response to violence against women and their children. This follows the recommendation made by the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence, which also recommended the development of a national family violence risk assessment framework and tool should be pursued.

This paper will examine the merits of developing a national framework for family violence risk assessment and management. The paper will examine current approaches to risk assessment and management across Australian state and territory jurisdictions as well as the findings of recent reviews into the effectiveness of such schemes. The merits of a national risk assessment framework will then be examined, with particular consideration given to the need to bring risks associated with the family court into view, the need to develop an evidence base of risks beyond intimate partner violence, and jurisdictional difficulties that may arise from the introduction of a national scheme.

Presenter Bio:

Kate Fitz-Gibbon is a senior lecturer in criminology in the School of Social Sciences at Monash University. Her research examines family violence, legal responses to lethal violence and the effects of homicide law and sentencing reform in Australian and international jurisdictions. This research is undertaken with a key focus on issues relating to gender, constructions of responsibility and justice. Kate has advised on homicide law reform reviews in several Australian jurisdictions. Recent publications include Homicide, Gender and Responsibility: An International Perspective (eds Kate Fitz-Gibbon and Sandra Walkate).


“If I have to go back, I’d rather die here”:  Disconnection and family violence risk assessment for CALD women

Marie Segrave*, JaneMaree Maher

*Marie Segrave: marie.segrave@monash.edu

This paper will draw on recent research in Victoria with victim/survivors of family violence and key stakeholders in the sector, to map points of disconnect between the risk assessment framework in use in Victoria and CALD women’s lived risks. The paper will highlight that for CALD women there are specific barriers to naming violence, to seeking help and to leaving. These barriers are can be understood as additional or unseen risk factors. This conceptualisation of barriers assists in understanding first, that there are components of risk specific to CALD women, and second, that family violence risk assessment must be contextualised, to ensure that risk does not go unrecognised due to a lack of shared understanding of concepts and meanings. To illustrate these issues, we will identify how immigration status and community entanglement are two components of risk that are specific to CALD women. We will then identify how an absence of nuanced understanding regarding potential perpetrator/s, isolation, and how key concepts are understood can result in risk being unacknowledged, and action not being taken.

Presenter Bios

Marie Segrave is a Senior Lecturer in Criminology at Monash University and a DECRA Fellow (2014-2018, Irregular Migration Labour Exploitation). Marie has undertaken extensive research examining the intersection of gender, violence, vulnerability and citizenship. She is currently working with InTouch Multicultural Centre Against Family Violence to undertake a comprehensive review of the impact of immigration status on risk and support for CALD women.

Associate Professor JaneMaree Maher is Associate Professor in the Centre for Women’s Studies and Gender Research, and the co-leader of the Gender and Family Violence Research Program in the School of Social Sciences at Monash University. JaneMaree has researched and published extensively on women’s work and family, and on motherhood and family life, and gendered violence. Her work and leadership in the area of gendered violence brings together a range of projects focused on how criminal justice mobilises notions of femininity and masculinity gender in crime and and punishment.

Family violence risk assessment in Australia

Jude McCulloch1, Kate Fitz-Gibbon1, Marie Segrave1, JaneMaree Maher1

School of Social Sciences, Monash University

Risking women’s lives: The contrasting approaches to the risk of family violence and ‘terrorism’.

Jude McCulloch*

*Jude McCulloch: jude.mcculloch@monash.edu

Focusing on Australia this paper compares and contrasts the approach to the risk of ‘terrorism’ and family violence. It briefly describes the rise in risk as a way of understanding and addressing social problems and crime generally before examining the rise of risk as a framework for addressing family violence as a gendered crime. It then considers the relationship between risk and security and the shift in the way risk has been operationalised in the counter terrorism arena post 9/11. It maintains that while risk is a key driver of policy and legislative change in the fields of both family violence and terrorism the way risk is understood and mobilised in these fields is vastly different. Terrorism is dealt with in a precautionary or pre-crime frame while family violence continues to be dealt with in a more traditional post-crime frame. This illustrates the risk of gendered crime and family violence in particular is a risk that continues to be more tolerated that the risk of terrorism. While family violence homicides in Australia and other western countries (the majority of which involve women as victims) far outweigh deaths from terrorism the risk of terrorism is treated as more significant than that of family violence. It contends that these different constructions of risk and the exclusion of family violence from the national security agenda reflect and reinforce gendered notions of risk and value.

Presenter Bio:

Jude McCulloch is Professor of Criminology at Monash University in the School of Social Sciences. Her most research focuses on ‘pre-crime’, risk, counter terrorism and family violence. Along with four other researchers from the School of Social Sciences she has recently undertaken a review of the Victorian Family Violence Common Risk Assessment and Risk Management Framework for the Department of Health and Human Services. She has published more than eighty chapters and journal articles, five authored books, three edited collections, edited special editions of journals and written for major newspapers, magazines and practitioner journals. Her latest books are Pre-Crime: Pre-emption, Precaution and Future Crime (with Dean Wilson), State Crime and Resistance (eds Elizabeth Stanely and Jude McCulloch) and International Students and Crime (Forbes-Mewett and McCulloch).

Family violence risk assessment in Australia: Examining the merits of a national framework

Kate Fitz-Gibbon*

* Kate Fitz-Gibbon: kate.fitzgibbon@monash.edu

Improved risk assessment and management has become a key focus of strategies for reducing family violence and its impacts. In Australia there is no single ‘best practice’ tool or approach to actuarial or structured risk assessment in family violence generally or intimate partner violence in particular. Common risk assessment frameworks have been introduced in Victoria, Western Australia and Northern Territory while the remaining states adopt a range of diverse approaches to assessing and managing risk in family violence cases. Recent reviews of the family violence system across Australia and state Coronial Inquests findings have revealed shortcomings in current approaches to identifying, assessing and managing risk of family violence. In 2016 the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Advisory Panel Report on Reducing violence against women and their children recommended that a national risk assessment framework be developed to provide a more consistent, integrated response to violence against women and their children. This follows the recommendation made by the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence, which also recommended the development of a national family violence risk assessment framework and tool should be pursued.

This paper will examine the merits of developing a national framework for family violence risk assessment and management. The paper will examine current approaches to risk assessment and management across Australian state and territory jurisdictions as well as the findings of recent reviews into the effectiveness of such schemes. The merits of a national risk assessment framework will then be examined, with particular consideration given to the need to bring risks associated with the family court into view, the need to develop an evidence base of risks beyond intimate partner violence, and jurisdictional difficulties that may arise from the introduction of a national scheme.

Presenter Bio:

Kate Fitz-Gibbon is a senior lecturer in criminology in the School of Social Sciences at Monash University. Her research examines family violence, legal responses to lethal violence and the effects of homicide law and sentencing reform in Australian and international jurisdictions. This research is undertaken with a key focus on issues relating to gender, constructions of responsibility and justice. Kate has advised on homicide law reform reviews in several Australian jurisdictions. Recent publications include Homicide, Gender and Responsibility: An International Perspective (eds Kate Fitz-Gibbon and Sandra Walkate).


“If I have to go back, I’d rather die here”:  Disconnection and family violence risk assessment for CALD women

Marie Segrave*, JaneMaree Maher

*Marie Segrave: marie.segrave@monash.edu

This paper will draw on recent research in Victoria with victim/survivors of family violence and key stakeholders in the sector, to map points of disconnect between the risk assessment framework in use in Victoria and CALD women’s lived risks. The paper will highlight that for CALD women there are specific barriers to naming violence, to seeking help and to leaving. These barriers are can be understood as additional or unseen risk factors. This conceptualisation of barriers assists in understanding first, that there are components of risk specific to CALD women, and second, that family violence risk assessment must be contextualised, to ensure that risk does not go unrecognised due to a lack of shared understanding of concepts and meanings. To illustrate these issues, we will identify how immigration status and community entanglement are two components of risk that are specific to CALD women. We will then identify how an absence of nuanced understanding regarding potential perpetrator/s, isolation, and how key concepts are understood can result in risk being unacknowledged, and action not being taken.

Presenter Bios

Marie Segrave is a Senior Lecturer in Criminology at Monash University and a DECRA Fellow (2014-2018, Irregular Migration Labour Exploitation). Marie has undertaken extensive research examining the intersection of gender, violence, vulnerability and citizenship. She is currently working with InTouch Multicultural Centre Against Family Violence to undertake a comprehensive review of the impact of immigration status on risk and support for CALD women.

Associate Professor JaneMaree Maher is Associate Professor in the Centre for Women’s Studies and Gender Research, and the co-leader of the Gender and Family Violence Research Program in the School of Social Sciences at Monash University. JaneMaree has researched and published extensively on women’s work and family, and on motherhood and family life, and gendered violence. Her work and leadership in the area of gendered violence brings together a range of projects focused on how criminal justice mobilises notions of femininity and masculinity gender in crime and and punishment.

Australian violence

J.Stubbs1*,  D. Chappell, 3 R Homel, 4 K. Carrington,4  R. Hogg,5  J Bargen 6

1 Faculty of Law UNSW
2 Facutly of Law, University of Sydney
3 Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University
4 School of Justice, Queensland University of Technology
5 Crime and Justice Research Centre, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology
6 Independent researcher

*corresponding author: j.stubbs@unsw.edu.au

 

Australian violence: Then and now

Julie Stubbs 1 and Stephen Tomsen 2

1 Faculty of Law, UNSW
2 School of Social Sciences and Psychology, Western Sydney University

This paper provides a foundation for the panel by asking the question what is distinctive about Australian violence? Drawing on the new book Australian Violence: Crime, Criminal Justice and Beyond, the paper examines fluidity in shifting conceptions of violence.  It reflects on changes over time in approaches to violence, Australian contributions to international scholarly debates and innovative practices in response to violence. It also notes the leadership of Australian scholars to post-colonial criminology and the newly emerging Southern Criminology, and the new insights this has brought to the analysis of violence.

Shooting, spanking, punching and other matters: Reflections on the work and impact of the National Committee on violence

Duncan Chappell, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, duncan.chappell@sydney.edu.au

On August 9 1987 a gunman, armed with three firearms including a military style M 14 rifle, opened fire on citizens and traffic on Hoddle Street, in busy inner city Melbourne. The gunman, who killed seven people and injured a further 19 was apprehended at the scene and taken into police custody. Just a few months later, on December 8 1987, another gunman armed with a sawn-off M1 military style weapon stormed into an office building in Queen St in the central business district of Melbourne. Firing indiscriminately at office workers the gunman’s rampage resulted in the deaths of eight people and the injury of another five. The gunman evaded capture by jumping to his death from an office window.

These two incidents, subsequently labelled the Hoddle and Queen Street massacres, were among the worst mass killings to have occurred in recent Australian history. The incidents provoked widespread citizen and governmental alarm about the immediate safety of the public as well as the general state of violence in Australian society. Shortly after the massacres the then Prime Minister, Robert Hawke, convened a meeting of the State Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to discuss gun control. From this meeting emerged an agreement among all of the governments to establish a National Committee on Violence (NCV).

The presenter, then the Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), was appointed Chair of the NCV which reported its findings and recommendations in 1990 (Violence. Directions for Australia). In this paper he reflects on the work and subsequent impact of the NCV with particular reference to gun control, spanking of children and boxing.

Social disadvantage, community mobilisation, and the prevention of violence: A longitudinal community study

Homel1*, R. Wickes2 & R. Zahnow2

1 Griffith Criminology Institute
2 School of Social Science, University of Queensland

*r.homel@griffith.edu.au

Introduction

Cross-sectional studies demonstrate the strong relationship between disadvantage, social cohesion and violence. Less well understood is how community structure and processes influence violence over time.

Methods

Social disorganisation theorists contend that crime concentrates in disorganised areas because community structural characteristics (poverty, racial/ethnic concentration, residential instability) break down regulatory processes. The Australian Community Capacity Study is one of just four studies to examine neighbourhood processes and crime and disorder prospectively over time. We use three waves of the ACCS (2006-2011) across 148 Brisbane suburbs, plus census and police data, to examine the temporal relationship between socio-structural characteristics, community cohesion, and violence.

Results

Overall rates of violence within suburbs did not change, but there was variability between suburbs in violence at any given time, and also variation between suburbs in within suburb changes in violence. Modelling showed that suburbs that increased in social cohesion experienced lower violence over time. Changes in residential mobility, population density, and language diversity did not predict higher violence, but increases in disadvantage were associated with higher violence.

Conclusions

Over a 6-year period across 148 Brisbane suburbs, only reductions in aggregate levels of cohesion and trust and increases in disadvantage were associated with increased rates of police-recorded violence. Aligning social disorganisation research with prevention science using community coalitions of residents and service providers as a prevention delivery system can help identify both the mechanisms that allow for the development of social cohesion and the ways in which social cohesion manifests in activities that lead to lower violence.

Violence in rural Australia

Kerry Carrington 1* , Russell Hogg 2

1 School of Justice, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology
2 Crime and Justice Research Centre, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology.

Traditions of scholarship in the social sciences have tended to perpetuate the myth that rural communities are relatively violence free by romanticising them as places of ‘unquestionable moral virtue’ (Lockie, 2000: 21). Similarly within criminology, most scholarly research about crime and violence has privileged urban settlement as the ideal laboratory of criminological research, neglecting the study of violence in rural contexts. It should not be surprising then that violence in rural societies has attracted little scholarly attention until recently. This neglect is linked to the idea that violence is antithetical to an imagined but idealist conception of what is rural.  This paper, base on our chapter to the collection on Violence in Australia, challenges the myth perpetuated by modernisation thesis – that rural communities are relatively free of crime and violence.

Restorative justice as an innovative response to violence

Jenny Bargen,1 Janet Chan 2 and Jane Bolitho 3

1 Independent researcher
2 Faculty of Law, UNSW
3 Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, UNSW

There are many good reasons for criminal justice researchers and policymakers to be sceptical about initiatives that are labelled as ‘innovative’. ‘Innovative’ is a term often used for marketing to create a sense of novelty and superiority that may or may not be present in the product. That the tag ‘innovative’ helps sell not only consumer goods but also public policy is symptomatic of a commercial culture that has become ubiquitous in contemporary social life. Yet, as we will argue in this paper, ‘innovative’ can have a tangible meaning in criminal justice. We focus on one of the less well known and rarely promoted ‘innovative justice’ responses -the post-sentence Victim Offender Conference (VOC) run by the Restorative Justice Unit of Corrective Services NSW—and discuss why this form of restorative justice (RJ) practice has the capacity to be a truly innovative response to criminal violence in Australia.

 

Biography

Julie Stubbs is a criminologist whose research is largely focused on gender and criminal justice. Duncan Chappell is a lawyer, criminologist and previously Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology. Ross Homel ‘s passion is crime and violence prevention, for which he has won many awards.Kerry Carrington is an international leader in southern criminology, youth justice, rural crime, gender and violence.Russell Hogg is a leading scholar in theoretical criminology, punishment and society, the politics of law and order, and crime and justice in rural communities. Jenny Bargen is a research consultant and previously Director,  Youth Conferencing in NSW.

Australian violence

J.Stubbs1*,  D. Chappell, 3 R Homel, 4 K. Carrington,4  R. Hogg,5  J Bargen 6

1 Faculty of Law UNSW
2 Facutly of Law, University of Sydney
3 Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University
4 School of Justice, Queensland University of Technology
5 Crime and Justice Research Centre, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology
6 Independent researcher

*corresponding author: j.stubbs@unsw.edu.au

 

Australian violence: Then and now

Julie Stubbs 1 and Stephen Tomsen 2

1 Faculty of Law, UNSW
2 School of Social Sciences and Psychology, Western Sydney University

This paper provides a foundation for the panel by asking the question what is distinctive about Australian violence? Drawing on the new book Australian Violence: Crime, Criminal Justice and Beyond, the paper examines fluidity in shifting conceptions of violence.  It reflects on changes over time in approaches to violence, Australian contributions to international scholarly debates and innovative practices in response to violence. It also notes the leadership of Australian scholars to post-colonial criminology and the newly emerging Southern Criminology, and the new insights this has brought to the analysis of violence.

Shooting, spanking, punching and other matters: Reflections on the work and impact of the National Committee on violence

Duncan Chappell, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, duncan.chappell@sydney.edu.au

On August 9 1987 a gunman, armed with three firearms including a military style M 14 rifle, opened fire on citizens and traffic on Hoddle Street, in busy inner city Melbourne. The gunman, who killed seven people and injured a further 19 was apprehended at the scene and taken into police custody. Just a few months later, on December 8 1987, another gunman armed with a sawn-off M1 military style weapon stormed into an office building in Queen St in the central business district of Melbourne. Firing indiscriminately at office workers the gunman’s rampage resulted in the deaths of eight people and the injury of another five. The gunman evaded capture by jumping to his death from an office window.

These two incidents, subsequently labelled the Hoddle and Queen Street massacres, were among the worst mass killings to have occurred in recent Australian history. The incidents provoked widespread citizen and governmental alarm about the immediate safety of the public as well as the general state of violence in Australian society. Shortly after the massacres the then Prime Minister, Robert Hawke, convened a meeting of the State Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to discuss gun control. From this meeting emerged an agreement among all of the governments to establish a National Committee on Violence (NCV).

The presenter, then the Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), was appointed Chair of the NCV which reported its findings and recommendations in 1990 (Violence. Directions for Australia). In this paper he reflects on the work and subsequent impact of the NCV with particular reference to gun control, spanking of children and boxing.

Social disadvantage, community mobilisation, and the prevention of violence: A longitudinal community study

Homel1*, R. Wickes2 & R. Zahnow2

1 Griffith Criminology Institute
2 School of Social Science, University of Queensland

*r.homel@griffith.edu.au

Introduction

Cross-sectional studies demonstrate the strong relationship between disadvantage, social cohesion and violence. Less well understood is how community structure and processes influence violence over time.

Methods

Social disorganisation theorists contend that crime concentrates in disorganised areas because community structural characteristics (poverty, racial/ethnic concentration, residential instability) break down regulatory processes. The Australian Community Capacity Study is one of just four studies to examine neighbourhood processes and crime and disorder prospectively over time. We use three waves of the ACCS (2006-2011) across 148 Brisbane suburbs, plus census and police data, to examine the temporal relationship between socio-structural characteristics, community cohesion, and violence.

Results

Overall rates of violence within suburbs did not change, but there was variability between suburbs in violence at any given time, and also variation between suburbs in within suburb changes in violence. Modelling showed that suburbs that increased in social cohesion experienced lower violence over time. Changes in residential mobility, population density, and language diversity did not predict higher violence, but increases in disadvantage were associated with higher violence.

Conclusions

Over a 6-year period across 148 Brisbane suburbs, only reductions in aggregate levels of cohesion and trust and increases in disadvantage were associated with increased rates of police-recorded violence. Aligning social disorganisation research with prevention science using community coalitions of residents and service providers as a prevention delivery system can help identify both the mechanisms that allow for the development of social cohesion and the ways in which social cohesion manifests in activities that lead to lower violence.

Violence in rural Australia

Kerry Carrington 1* , Russell Hogg 2

1 School of Justice, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology
2 Crime and Justice Research Centre, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology.

Traditions of scholarship in the social sciences have tended to perpetuate the myth that rural communities are relatively violence free by romanticising them as places of ‘unquestionable moral virtue’ (Lockie, 2000: 21). Similarly within criminology, most scholarly research about crime and violence has privileged urban settlement as the ideal laboratory of criminological research, neglecting the study of violence in rural contexts. It should not be surprising then that violence in rural societies has attracted little scholarly attention until recently. This neglect is linked to the idea that violence is antithetical to an imagined but idealist conception of what is rural.  This paper, base on our chapter to the collection on Violence in Australia, challenges the myth perpetuated by modernisation thesis – that rural communities are relatively free of crime and violence.

Restorative justice as an innovative response to violence

Jenny Bargen,1 Janet Chan 2 and Jane Bolitho 3

1 Independent researcher
2 Faculty of Law, UNSW
3 Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, UNSW

There are many good reasons for criminal justice researchers and policymakers to be sceptical about initiatives that are labelled as ‘innovative’. ‘Innovative’ is a term often used for marketing to create a sense of novelty and superiority that may or may not be present in the product. That the tag ‘innovative’ helps sell not only consumer goods but also public policy is symptomatic of a commercial culture that has become ubiquitous in contemporary social life. Yet, as we will argue in this paper, ‘innovative’ can have a tangible meaning in criminal justice. We focus on one of the less well known and rarely promoted ‘innovative justice’ responses -the post-sentence Victim Offender Conference (VOC) run by the Restorative Justice Unit of Corrective Services NSW—and discuss why this form of restorative justice (RJ) practice has the capacity to be a truly innovative response to criminal violence in Australia.

 

Biography

Julie Stubbs is a criminologist whose research is largely focused on gender and criminal justice. Duncan Chappell is a lawyer, criminologist and previously Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology. Ross Homel ‘s passion is crime and violence prevention, for which he has won many awards.Kerry Carrington is an international leader in southern criminology, youth justice, rural crime, gender and violence.Russell Hogg is a leading scholar in theoretical criminology, punishment and society, the politics of law and order, and crime and justice in rural communities. Jenny Bargen is a research consultant and previously Director,  Youth Conferencing in NSW.

The court of the future

Laura Wajnryb McDonald1David Tait1, Rick Sarre2

Western Sydney University
University of South Australia

Just as it is changing almost every aspect of social life, digital technology is transforming justice processes too. Indeed, the move towards ‘virtual’ justice means that courts of the future will need to embrace technology in order to meet the demands placed upon them by all justice process participants. Court participants are becoming more likely to want to use their own digital devices to present and view evidence, while immersive technology will allow participants to take part from multiple locations. But while justice is, in a sense, a ‘service’, it is also a public good, and, as such, must remain concerned with protecting rights and freedoms. It is important to assess the extent to which such technological changes improve access to justice or, conversely, undermine fundamental rights. This panel will discuss the future of courts in light of two empirical research experiments, one that tested digital evidence in the jury room, and one that tested immersive technology in the courtroom.

Immersive technology in the courtroom

Laura Wajnryb McDonald

This presentation outlines findings from an empirical research experiment, which tested immersive technology in a mock-criminal trial. The model of the “Distributed Courtroom” involves participants being dispersed in multiple court-like spaces. While the judge and jury are physically located in the courtroom, each party (the defendant by themselves, or with their lawyer, the prosecutor, and the witness) comes in remotely via screens that are arrayed in logical positions around the courtroom, reflecting the classic setup. Importantly, remote participants are represented ‘true to life’ with appropriate sightlines and directional sound.

This model was developed in order to test the effectiveness of emerging technology, as well as possible juror prejudice against the remote defendant and issues of remote witness credibility. Based on the findings from this experiment, the research team developed guidelines for appropriate use of immersive technologies in court proceedings; these include recommendations for room configuration, location of the witness and the accused, sightlines and camera positioning.

Juries, Science and Popular Culture in the Age of Terror: The case of the Sydney bomber

David Tait

Terrorism has become an everyday reality in most contemporary societies and the consequences are far-reaching. Jurors in terrorism trials are expected to remain impartial in highly emotive trials while being confronted with graphic and interactive evidence. This presentation summarises a number of different perspectives on this topic, which are included in a recently published co-edited book by David Tait and Jane Goodman-Delahunty. These range from the legal landscape of terrorism trials in the western world, to the effect of visual evidence on jurors and the role of science in these cases. Lastly, recommendations for courts, legal practitioners and expert witnesses will be outlined.

 

The way forward

Rick Sarre

Just as it is changing almost every aspect of social life, digital technology is transforming justice processes too. Indeed, the move towards ‘virtual’ justice means that courts of the future will need to embrace technology in order to meet the demands placed upon them by all justice process participants. Court participants are becoming more likely to want to use their own digital devices to present and view evidence, while immersive technology will allow participants to take part from multiple locations. But while justice is, in a sense, a ‘service’, it is also a public good, and, as such, must remain concerned with protecting rights and freedoms. It is important to assess the extent to which such technological changes improve access to justice or, conversely, undermine fundamental rights. This panel will discuss the future of courts in light of two research projects, one focuses on juries in terrorism cases, and the other on immersive technology in the courtroom.

Biography

L.W.McDonald is a Project Manager and Research Officer at the Justice Research Group at Western Sydney University, and a PhD candidate in Criminology at the University of Sydney.

R.Sarre is a Professor in the School of Law at the University of South Australia and the President of ANZSOC.D.

Tait is Professor of Justice Research at Western Sydney University and Associate Professor at Telecom ParisTech.

12

ABOUT ANZSOC

The society is devoted to promoting criminological study, research and practice in the region and bringing together persons engaged in all aspects of the field. The membership of the society reflects the diversity of persons involved in the field, including practitioners, academics, policy makers and students.

Conference Managers

Please contact the team at Conference Design with any questions regarding the conference.
© 2018 Conference Design Pty Ltd