Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:11 pm
Time: 8:11 pm
Results for criminal justice policy (u.k.)
6 results foundAuthor: Shelupanov, Anton Title: Turning the Corner: Beyond Incarceration and Re-Offending Summary: This report makes the case for innovation in the justice sector - at policy, strategic and implementation levels, both locally and nationally. There is now widespread agreement that the system needs to change radically. But unfortunately there is not a sufficient number of proven alternatives to what exists which can simply be implemented and scaled up. Instead the system needs to become much more adept at designing, rapidly testing and then scaling new innovations in everything from helping former offenders into jobs to effectively supervising people on community sentences. This report assesses the current situation in terms of what the existing systemic challenges there are, what is being attempted to address them and how recent political and economic upheavals have affected the efforts of the justice system to reduce offending and strive for a safer society. Prison numbers are exceptionally high and the system is very expensive. At the same time major budget cuts mean that unless the system innovates, it may not be able to perform its function of keeping crime low and keeping the public safe. The Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke has signalled that he wants to see a rehabilitation revolution. Such a revolution would mean a radically new approach, rather than doing more of the same. In this report we propose a number of new ideas: A greater role for innovation in justice; Social Impact Bonds; and Enhancing the employment prospects of former offenders by introducing Deployers. Details: London: The Young Foundation, 2010. 104p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 19, 2010 at: http://www.youngfoundation.org/files/images/Turning_the_Corner.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.youngfoundation.org/files/images/Turning_the_Corner.pdf Shelf Number: 119640 Keywords: Criminal Justice Policy (U.K.)Ex-Offenders, EmploymentPrison Reform PolicyPrisoner ReentryRehabilitation |
Author: Great Britain. Ministry of Justice Title: Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders Summary: The Ministry of Justice Structural Reform Plan published in July 2010 set out a commitment to introduce a 'rehabilitation revolution' and conduct a review of sentencing policy. This consultation sets out the resulting proposals which aim to break the destructive cycle of crime and protect the public, through more effectively punishing and rehabilitating offenders and reforming the sentencing framework. Details: London: The Stationery Officer, 2010. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 1, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/docs/breaking-the-cycle.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/docs/breaking-the-cycle.pdf Shelf Number: 120654 Keywords: Criminal Justice Policy (U.K.)OffendersPunishmentRehabilitationSentencing |
Author: Bandyopadhyay, Siddhartha Title: An Analysis of Crime and Crime Policy Summary: Crime and crime policy are never far from the public policy domain. There is heated debate among politicians, policy makers, law enforcement officers and the general public about what is the best approach for tackling crime. Even within the same political party there is disagreement. For example, in what was his first major speech since he took office, the Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said prison was often ‘a costly and ineffectual approach that fails to turn criminals into law-abiding citizens’. He went on to talk about the need to address the underlying causes (economic and sociological) of criminal behaviour. This view was immediately contested by his fellow Conservative and former Home Secretary Michael Howard (who said he stood by his long standing view that ‘prison works’). In this note, I try to provide an analysis of some empirical findings on what deters crime based on some recent research in which I have been involved. I then go on to point out what we don’t know and point out fresh challenges that law enforcement may face from deep budget cuts and having to comply with EU legislation. In the concluding section, I summarize our findings and touch briefly on complementary methods of crime fighting such as citizen reporting which have not been rigorously examined. Although this analysis does not provide an overview of recent work in the economics of crime (that would fill an entire book!), it explains some key issues of my recent research. Details: London: CIVITAS: Institute for the Study of Civil Society, 2011. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2011 at: http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crimepolicyMarch2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crimepolicyMarch2011.pdf Shelf Number: 121566 Keywords: Crime PreventionCriminal Justice Policy (U.K.)Criminal Justice Reform |
Author: Nwabuzo, Ojeaku Title: The Riot Roundtables: Race and the riots of August 2011 Summary: The civil unrest that took place across England’s cities and towns in August 2011 was unprecedented; an experience not felt for at least a generation. Mark Duggan’s death is widely seen to be the spark that ignited those furious days of destruction and the Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death continues. Five people are known to have been killed during the course of the civil disturbance. The impact of the lives lost and the families traumatised as the civil unrest spread across London and the rest of England will take some time to heal. The level of destruction and looting on the streets of England was exceptional. The claims for loss and damage stand between £200-300 million in London alone. When the cost of police overtime and the drafting in of officer reinforcements are included, some reports indicate a total cost of more than £370 million. The streets that were so marked by devastation in August 2011 have largely been refurbished but many shop owners still await their insurance awards and some local business will sadly not reopen. In the aftermath of the civil disturbance, there was quite rightly a condemnation of the violent and destructive activities but there was also a reluctance to understand why it had happened. The disturbances witnessed in Tottenham following the death of Mark Duggan bore a close resemblance to violent unrest that arose from injustices felt by the African Caribbean community in the 1980s. However, as the disturbances spread across London and further, the events unfolded into something less recognizable. In the absence of a full government inquiry, the Runnymede Trust was concerned that ethnic inequality and racial injustice, as potential factors in the civil unrest, were too quickly dismissed and marginalised from public discussions. The Runnymede Riot Roundtables project brought together key local decision-makers, professionals, young people and members of the community to find out what happened during the riots and what can be done to prevent similar riots happening again. Most significantly the project aimed to find out if race played a role in the riots. Roundtables were held in Birmingham, Bradford, Coventry, Croydon, Lewisham and Westminster; young people were trained to work as peer-topeer researchers and the general public were interviewed in local community hubs. This report aims to highlight the complex ways in which race and racial inequality played a role in the events of August 2011 and provides an alternative narrative for why the civil disturbances occurred. Without a doubt the disturbances emerged and developed from particular local contexts but there are discernible patterns; the disturbances in each of the areas we visited shared some characteristics. The research participants spoke of community tensions with the police; a general rebelliousness amongst ‘disaffected’ young people; and criminal opportunism. It appears that there was not one reason for the civil unrest but many. However, we heard of various examples of racial injustice and racial inequality and what emerged from the Riot Roundtables project is that racial injustice can be seen to be a significant factor in the civil unrest of 2011. This report is organised into four key chapters. Chapter Two, ‘What happened?’, includes a timeline of events; information on who was brought before the courts; and a discussion of the initial responses to the civil unrest. Chapter Three focuses on the reasons for the civil disturbances and is discussed in the light of respondents’ reflections on race relations, racism and racial inequalities. Chapter Four explores the possible reasons why Bradford, a city that has in recent history experienced ‘race riots’, remained peaceful during those days in August 2011. The final chapter of this report includes our conclusions and the policy recommendations that have emerged from this project. Details: London: Runnymeade, 2012. 46p. Source: Runnymeade Report: Internet Resource: Accessed March 21, 2012 at http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/publications/pdfs/RiotRoundtables-2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/publications/pdfs/RiotRoundtables-2012.pdf Shelf Number: 124632 Keywords: Criminal Justice Policy (U.K.)Race (U.K.)Riots (U.K.) |
Author: Baird, Vera Title: Everywoman Safe Everywhere: Labour's Commission on Women's Safety Summary: Everywoman Safe Everywhere, Labour’s Commission on Women’s Safety was established in November 2011 in response to concerns that, not only were government policies disproportionately impacting upon women economically, but may be risking their safety too. In the last three months the Commission has held 14 evidence gathering sessions in different towns and cities; has engaged with more than 100 organisations and experts, and received upwards of 160 submissions from women and men around the country on the status of services which safeguard the personal safety of women. We have also analysed up-to-date background literature. A wide range and breadth of issues were discussed, but a number of consistent factors were repeatedly raised. In the course of these discussions, participants have raised many distinct and diverse concerns, from the provision of services for those who are victims of rape or domestic violence, to the impact of cuts in street lighting, station staffing and car parking charges on how safe women feel. Alongside identifying specific decisions taken by the Government that put them at risk, women also spoke of longstanding inequalities and their frustration at a lack of progress in addressing these. In particular, the Commission heard repeatedly from women of all ages of the discomfort they feel about the way in which women are portrayed in modern culture, which many felt made them more vulnerable to harassment and violence, as well as causing them to feel restricted in their everyday lives. This report seeks to capture these discussions and identify the increasing risks to the personal safety of women in Britain. It paints a compelling picture of the cumulative impact of changes to the law and public service provision which are undermining recent progress in keeping women safe in Britain, as well as a failure to deal with both new and old forms of inequality which scar the lives of too many in our society. Just as there is now overwhelming evidence that women have borne the brunt of the economic recession, so too it is clear that the services designed to keep them safe are now also under threat too. This document sets out the evidence the Commission has gathered in just the first three months, along with the growing signs of serious concerns across the country. But we are clear that more research, evidence and analysis is needed. Details: London: Labour Party, 2012. 70p. Source: First Interim Report: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2012 at http://www.labour.org.uk/uploads/455bf616-f048-b184-e903-c9629a67745a.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.labour.org.uk/uploads/455bf616-f048-b184-e903-c9629a67745a.pdf Shelf Number: 124721 Keywords: Community Safety (U.K.)Criminal Justice Policy (U.K.)Female Victims (U.K.)Victims Services (U.K.) |
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. European Union Committee Title: Eu Police and Criminal Justice Measures: The UK's 2014 Opt-out Decision Summary: Under Protocol 36 to the EU Treaties, the Government must decide whether or not the UK should continue to be bound by around 130 EU police and criminal justice (PCJ) measures which were adopted before the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force in 2009, or whether it should exercise its right to opt out of them all. That decision must be made at the latest by 31 May 2014. If the Government do not opt out, on 1 December 2014 these measures will become subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the enforcement powers of the European Commission. If the Government do exercise the opt-out, the PCJ measures will cease to apply to the UK on 1 December 2014. The CJEU’s jurisdiction and the Commission’s enforcement powers will then apply in relation to the measures for all the Member States except the UK. The UK may later rejoin any of the measures subject to conditions set out in the Protocol. On 15 October 2012, the Home Secretary said the Government’s “current thinking” was that the UK should opt out of all the pre-Lisbon measures and negotiate to rejoin individual measures where that is in the national interest. Shortly after this announcement we commenced our inquiry into the decision that needs to be taken by the Government. The Government have undertaken to consult both Houses of Parliament before it reaches a final decision, and this report is intended to support that process. The decision on the opt-out is one of great significance, with far-reaching implications not only for the UK but also for the other Member States and the EU as a whole. Cross-border cooperation on policing and criminal justice matters is an essential element in tackling security threats such as terrorism and organised crime in the twenty-first century. In the course of taking evidence from a wide range of witnesses, we found that supporters of the opt-out have several areas of concern, including: The risks associated with extending the jurisdiction of the CJEU in relation to the pre-Lisbon PCJ measures to include the UK, including the risk of “judicial activism” and the potential for undermining the UK’s common law systems; The loss of national control over areas of police and criminal justice policy; Many of the PCJ measures are of little use or are defunct; Many of the areas of cooperation could be achieved by non-legislative means or through alternative arrangements; They also wish the UK to use the opt-out to promote the reform of certain measures, in particular the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). Opponents of the opt-out, on the other hand, considered that: The pre-Lisbon measures are in the UK’s national interest and some are vital to our internal security; The measures are beneficial to UK citizens who may become the victims of crime or are suspected of committing a crime in another Member State and also in permitting the rapid extradition of criminals from other Member States who have come to the UK; The CJEU’s jurisdiction would provide the benefits of legal clarity and the stronger and more consistent application of EU measures across the EU; There is no risk to the UK’s common law systems and there has been no evidence of any harm caused to those systems from any PCJ measures or judgments; Withdrawing from some of those PCJ measures would result in the UK having to rely upon less effective means of cooperation; The UK would lose influence over existing and future EU police and criminal justice policies and agencies. We conclude that the concerns of proponents of opting out, in particular as regards the role of the CJEU, were not supported by the evidence we received and did not provide a convincing reason for exercising the opt-out. We have failed to identify any significant, objective, justification for avoiding the jurisdiction of the CJEU over the pre-Lisbon PCJ measures in the UK and note that the Government appeared to share that view in respect of the number of post-Lisbon PCJ measures to which they have opted in. Indeed, we believe that the CJEU has an important role to play, alongside Member States’ domestic courts, in safeguarding the rights of citizens and upholding the rule of law. It would be theoretically possible for the UK to continue cooperating with other Member States through alternative arrangements, but we found that these would raise legal complications, and result in more cumbersome, expensive and less effective procedures, thus weakening the hand of the UK’s police and law enforcement authorities. The negotiation of any new arrangements would also be a time-consuming and uncertain process. The most effective way for the UK to cooperate with other Member States is to remain engaged in the existing EU measures in this area. The European Arrest Warrant is the single most important of the measures which are subject to the opt-out decision. In some cases, the operation of the EAW has resulted in serious injustices, but these arose from the consequences of extradition, including long periods of pre-trial detention in poor prison conditions, which could occur under any alternative system of extradition. Relying upon alternative extradition arrangements is highly unlikely to address the criticisms directed at the EAW and would inevitably render the extradition process more protracted and cumbersome, potentially undermining public safety. The best way to achieve improvements in the operation of the EAW is through negotiations with the other Member States, the use of existing provisions in national law, informal judicial cooperation, the development of EU jurisprudence and the immediate implementation of flanking EU measures such as the European Supervision Order. If the opt-out is exercised, the UK may seek to rejoin individual PCJ measures but this process would not necessarily be automatic or straightforward. Witnesses who opposed exercising the opt-out were concerned that the procedures for rejoining measures are uncertain and depend on the decisions of the Commission and the other Member States; about timing (whether it would be practicable to rejoin measures without any hiatus in their application); and about cost (the potential to incur financial consequences assessed by the Commission, and sunk costs, for example, substantial multi-million pound contributions to the development of second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) if the UK did not rejoin that system). Watertight transitional arrangements would have to be agreed, and there is a clear risk that gaps and legal uncertainties would arise. We are unable to form a firm view on the merits and adequacy of any list of measures that the Government might seek to rejoin, were the opt-out to be exercised, since they have not provided us with any list of measures they might seek to rejoin, nor even a summary of the reactions of the other Member States to the Government’s intention to exercise the opt-out, which may be critical in assessing the potential success or otherwise of the UK’s negotiations to rejoin particular measures. A proper assessment by Parliament of whether or not the optout should be exercised is necessarily linked with the measures which the Government wish (or are able) to rejoin. In light of the evidence we have received, including a preponderant view among our witnesses from the legal, law enforcement and prosecutorial professions, we conclude that the Government have not made a convincing case for exercising the opt-out and that opting out would have significant adverse negative repercussions for the internal security of the UK and the administration of criminal justice in the UK, as well as reducing its influence over this area of EU policy. Details: London: The Stationery Office Limited, 2013. 151p. Source: Internet Resource: HP Paper 159: accessed May 1, 2013 at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldeucom/159/159.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldeucom/159/159.pdf Shelf Number: 128591 Keywords: Criminal Justice Policy (U.K.)Criminal Justice SystemsPolicing (Europe) |