Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:23 pm
Time: 8:23 pm
Results for indigenous offenders
8 results foundAuthor: Australia. Parliament. Senate. Select Committee on Regional and Remote Indigenous Communities Title: Indigenous Australians, Incarceration and the Criminal Justice System Summary: This discussion paper has been prepared by the committee secretariat to provide the committee with an overview of Indigenous contact with the criminal justice system in Australia, including the nature of Indigenous offending, and current developments in corrective services. The first section reviews current statistics to build a picture of Indigenous contact with the criminal justice system in Australia. Approximately 25 per cent of prisoners in Australia are Indigenous, and this share is increasing over time. The rate of imprisonment for Indigenous adults is 14 times higher than for non-Indigenous adults and the gap is continuing to widen. Indigenous prisoners are overwhelmingly male, with assault being the major offence. Indigenous prisoners generally receive shorter sentences and spend less time on remand, but recidivism is much higher. The figures for juvenile detention are worse. Fifty-nine per cent of the juvenile detention population in 2007 was Indigenous. The rate of detention was 28 times higher than for non-Indigenous juveniles. The second section considers some of the reasons for Indigenous overrepresentation. The first part analyses some of the factors that contribute to high rates of Indigenous offending such as violence, alcohol, mental health issues and social disadvantage. The second part examines the response to Indigenous offending by the criminal justice system and finds that increasing imprisonment rates are in part a result of stricter sentencing policies. The third section provides information on rehabilitation programs with the potential to reduce offending and recidivism over time. Some of the most promising programs include juvenile treatments such as multi-systemic therapy, adult drug and alcohol programs and post-release support programs. Evidence based principles for successful rehabilitation programs are also presented. This section also includes a discussion of the costs of the criminal justice system in Australia, and the potential for both social and economic benefits as result of innovation in criminal justice. Finally, the results of an audit of programs and innovations in the Australian criminal justice system are presented in section four. Each state and territory was asked to provide information on current criminal justice programs and policies in their jurisdiction. There have been a limited number of evaluations undertaken across Australia. Evaluations have been included where available. Details: Canberra: The Senate, 2010. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 19, 2010 at: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/indig_ctte/Final_RRIC.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/indig_ctte/Final_RRIC.pdf Shelf Number: 120013 Keywords: Criminal Justice SystemImprisonmentIndigenous OffendersIndigenous PeoplesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Morgan, Anthony Title: Evaluation of the Queensland Murri Court: Final Report Summary: There have been a variety of innovative court models introduced, piloted and implemented across Australia to improve the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in dealing with specific offender populations. Indigenous sentencing courts have been established in most Australian jurisdictions in order to reduce high rates of reoffending among Indigenous offenders and to provide a more culturally - appropriate criminal justice process for Indigenous Australians that increases the involvement and confidence of the Indigenous community in the courts. There are a growing number of evaluations investigating the operation and effectiveness of these court models. These are important because they can provide policymakers, judiciary and court partners with an evidence base upon which to make decisions regarding the expansion, improvement and development of both new and existing court programs. This report presents the findings from the Australian Institute of Criminology’s (AIC) comprehensive evaluation of the Queensland Murri Court, undertaken with the support and assistance of a range of stakeholders involved in the program. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2010. 158p. Source: Internet Resource: AIC Technical and Background Paper No. 39: Accessed October 25, 2010 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/9/C/3/%7B9C3FF400-3995-472B-B442-789F892CFC36%7Dtbp039.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/9/C/3/%7B9C3FF400-3995-472B-B442-789F892CFC36%7Dtbp039.pdf Shelf Number: 120068 Keywords: CourtsIndigenous OffendersIndigenous Peoples |
Author: Barbour, Bruce: NSW Ombudsman Title: Review of the Impact of Criminal Infringement Notices on Aboriginal Communities Summary: Criminal Infringement Notices (CINs) provide police with an easy, additional option for dealing with adults who are suspected of certain minor offences that are usually characterised as criminal in nature. After a five-year trial in which 9,452 CINs were issued, the scheme was extended beyond the 12 trial locations to the rest of NSW in late 2007. In the first full year of state-wide use, 8,681 CINs were issued – most for just three offences: offensive conduct, offensive language and shoplifting. By contrast, an estimated 17,000 offences can be dealt with by penalty notice in NSW. In 2008, police records show that more than 500,000 penalty notices were issued to suspects aged 18 years and over. This was in addition to 170,000 criminal charges. The State Debt Recovery Office (SDRO) is the agency responsible for collecting penalty notice payments and taking enforcement action against those who do not pay. The SDRO estimates that the 18,133 CINs issued between 1 September 2002 and 31 October 2008 represent just 0.1% of the 15 million penalty notices that it processed in that period. While CINs make up just a small portion of police and SDRO business, the consequences for individual CIN recipients can be significant. Delays in paying a $150 CIN penalty for swearing or $300 penalty for shoplifting will usually result in enforcement action, adding an extra $50 in costs to each penalty notice, plus another $40 for each time that enforcement action involves an RTA sanction. Penalties and costs can quickly accumulate. Recipients who elect to have their CIN heard at court risk incurring a criminal record, a harsher penalty, additional costs and the stresses associated with the prosecution process. To the extent that CINs can divert petty offenders who would otherwise have been arrested, charged and brought before the courts, there are clear diversionary benefits. Paying the fixed penalty in the time allowed finalises the matter, providing a sanction to punish one-off misdemeanours without the recipient incurring a criminal record. There are also savings for police, courts and others involved in the judicial process. At the same time, the scheme preserves the right for recipients to elect to have their CIN determined by a court. Yet there are also risks associated with the use of CINs. These include risks of net increases in sanctions, in that some offenders may be issued with CINs in circumstances where previously they would have been warned or cautioned, risks that recipients might not court-elect or request an internal review despite having strong grounds to do so, and risks that recipients may simply ignore the penalty notice and become entrenched in the fines enforcement system - thereby incurring further debts, RTA sanctions and an increased likelihood of becoming involved in secondary offending. Our review has found that these pitfalls are particularly acute for Aboriginal people, who are already over-represented in the criminal justice system. The number of CINs issued to Aboriginal people has grown significantly since the scheme was extended state-wide, with Aboriginal suspects now accounting for 7.4% of all CINs issued, much higher than would be expected for a group that makes up just over 2% of the total NSW population. We also found that Aboriginal people are less likely to request a review or elect to have the matter heard at court, and that nine out of every 10 Aboriginal people issued with a CIN failed to pay within the time allowed, resulting in much higher numbers of these recipients becoming entrenched in the fines enforcement system. The impact of CINs and CIN-related debts on Aboriginal communities must be considered in the context of broader fines processes. During this review, Parliament approved important changes to the Fines Act 1996 that aim to reduce the negative impacts of the fines system on marginalised sections of the community, including Aboriginal people. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Ombudsman, 2009. 159p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 25, 2010 at: http://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/publication/PDF/other%20reports/FR_CINs_ATSI_review_Aug09.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/publication/PDF/other%20reports/FR_CINs_ATSI_review_Aug09.pdf Shelf Number: 120074 Keywords: FinesIndigenous OffendersMisdemeanorsNuisance Behaviors and DisordersPublic Order OffensesShoplifting |
Author: Deloitte Access Economics Title: An Economic Analysis for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Offenders. Prison vs Residential Treatment Summary: Deloitte Access Economics was appointed by NIDAC to: • examine the patterns and prevalence of Indigenous people in the prison system • outline the impact and implications of incarceration of Indigenous people, and • analyse the costs and benefits of addressing Indigenous problematic alcohol and drug use with treatment, particularly residential rehabilitation, as compared to prison. Indigenous Australians are over-represented in Australian prisons. At 30 June 2011, there were 29 106 prisoners in Australian prisons, of which 7656 (26%) were Indigenous (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011a). By comparison, 2.5 per cent of the total population was Indigenous in 2011 (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011b). In 2010–11, the imprisonment rate for Indigenous adults (aged 18 years or over) was 1746.51 per 100 000 compared with a corresponding rate of 125.4 for non-Indigenous people — a ratio of Indigenous to non- Indigenous imprisonment rates of 13.9 (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision 2012). In 2011, 70 per cent of Indigenous prisoners convicted of a violent offence had been previously convicted, and 81 per cent of Indigenous prisoners convicted of a non-violent offence (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011a). Indigenous prisoners were more likely to have been convicted of a prior offence than non-Indigenous prisoners. The majority of prisoners whose primary conviction was non-violent faced sentences (or expected to serve time) of less than five years, with more than three-quarters expected to serve less than two years. Overall, the proportion of Indigenous prisoners with an expected serving time of less than two years was 31 per cent. Around 68 per cent of Indigenous (and 65 per cent of non-Indigenous) prison entrants selfreported having used illicit drugs during the preceding 12 months (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2011a). Of all Indigenous prison entrants, those aged 18–24 years old were most likely to have used illicit drugs (76%). Based on data from a New South Wales survey, Indigenous prisoners are also significantly more likely to be dependent on alcohol than non-Indigenous prisoners, and Indigenous men were significantly more likely to report that they were intoxicated at the time of the offence for which they were incarcerated (Indiget al. 2010). Over the course of 2011, approximately 2476 Indigenous men and 400 Indigenous women entered2 prisons in Australia (based on analysis of data from Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011a). For the purposes of this study, Indigenous people who experience problematic drug or alcohol use and who are in prison for non-violent offences were seen as potentially benefiting from diversion from prison into a residential treatment program. Approximately half of Indigenous prisoners linked their offending to drug and alcohol use — suggesting approximately 3827 Indigenous prisoners in 2011 (see section 2.2). Excluding those who stated that their most serious offence was a violent offence leaves approximately 1607 Indigenous prisoners in 2011 who committed a non-violent offence which they attributed to drug and alcohol use. There are many factors that influence the choice of treatment, and the appropriateness of diversion, so the estimates here should be interpreted as broad approximations. Nevertheless, the potential quantum of the offender population who could be considered for diversion into residential rehabilitation treatment is around 1600 in 2011. Details: Canberra: National Indigenous Drug and Alcohol Committee, Australian National Council on Drugs, 2012. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: ANCD Research Paper; 24: Accessed February 8, 2013 at: https://www.deloitteaccesseconomics.com.au/uploads/File/NIDAC_Deloitte%20Access%20Economics%20Report(1).pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: https://www.deloitteaccesseconomics.com.au/uploads/File/NIDAC_Deloitte%20Access%20Economics%20Report(1).pdf Shelf Number: 127551 Keywords: AboriginalsAlternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-based CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeIndigenous OffendersIndigenous Peoples (Australia)Prisons |
Author: Anthony, Thalia Title: Addressing the “Crime Problem" of the Northern Territory Intervention: Alternate Paths to Regulating Minor Driving Offences in Remote Indigenous Communities Summary: This study examines the incidence of Indigenous driving offending in the Northern Territory since 2006 and assesses the effectiveness of law enforcement in addressing this crime. It seeks to ascertain alternative forms of regulating driver safety and whether they are better suited to Indigenous communities. In doing so, it identifies some of the major reasons for offending. It is particularly concerned with driving offences that have increased dramatically since 2006, including driving unlicensed and driving unregistered and uninsured cars. Details: Report to the Criminology Research Advisory Council. Sydney: University of Technology, Sydney: 2012. 90p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2013 at: http://www.criminologyresearchcouncil.gov.au/reports/CRG_38-0910_FinalReport.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.criminologyresearchcouncil.gov.au/reports/CRG_38-0910_FinalReport.pdf Shelf Number: 127577 Keywords: Aboriginal PeoplesDriving Offenses (Australia)Indigenous Offenders |
Author: Closing the Gap Clearinghouse Title: Diverting Indigenous offenders from the criminal justice system Summary: What we know - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are vastly over-represented in the Australian juvenile and criminal justice systems. - Incarceration comes at a high cost through exposure to harsh prison environment, marginalisation, poor health outcomes and impact upon employment opportunities. - A person's contact with or progression through the justice systems can be reduced through diversion programs. - Indigenous Australians have lower participation and completion rates of diversion programs, particularly those who access mainstream programs. What works - Positive outcomes found for diversion programs include reduced drug and substance use, and improved social functioning. - There is some evidence that diversion programs reduce reoffending, but the evidence is not strong. - Diversion programs of between 12 and 18 months have better outcomes than those of very short or extended durations. - On-the-job work experience and other forms of support, such as mentoring, help reduce reoffending and promote reintegration into the community. - Culturally appropriate treatment initiatives and rehabilitation boost the participation in and completion of a diversionary program. - Programs that address the concerns of Indigenous defendants by involving Indigenous Elders or facilitators in delivery work better. What doesn't work - Programs with strict eligibility criteria are not effective as repeat offenders are often unable to take advantage of relevant and helpful programs. - Unrealistic participation requirements that affect an offender's ability to complete a program could encourage their continued involvement with the criminal justice system. - Diverting offenders to protracted programs when their crimes were minor in nature can be counterproductive. The nature and length of a diversion program should be in proportion to the severity of the offence and any risk of reoffence. In some cases, a jail sentence of lesser duration may have been preferred to the program ordered. - Focussing on illicit drugs often misses the target. Alcohol, and not substance abuse, is the major underlying problem for Indigenous offenders, but it is not addressed by most of the mainstream drug diversion programs. - A lack of committed funding can limit the reach and functioning of a diversionary program, particularly in rural and remote Australia. What we don't know - Process rather than outcomes is often the focus for measuring success of a program and it is therefore difficult to determine the effectiveness of many diversionary programs. - There is little by way of in-depth data and objective evaluations to determine the medium and long-term effectiveness of Australian diversionary programs. - Outcomes for Indigenous participants of mainstream programs are not always measured or reported separately. Consequently, the suitability of these programs for Indigenous clients has not been fully verified. - It is unclear whether some diversionary programs lead to net-widening - that is, they may increase rather than lessen the involvement of defendants with the justice system. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare & Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2013. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Resource sheet no. 24: Accessed April 29, 2015 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/uploadedFiles/ClosingTheGap/Content/Publications/2013/ctgc-rs24.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/uploadedFiles/ClosingTheGap/Content/Publications/2013/ctgc-rs24.pdf Shelf Number: 135411 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDiversion ProgramsIndigenous OffendersIndigenous Peoples (Australia)Minority GroupsTreatment Programs |
Author: Weatherburn, Dan Title: Trends in Indigenous offending NSW: 2001-2015 Summary: Aim: To describe trends in Indigenous arrest rates in New South Wales for property and violent offences. Method: Descriptive analysis of overall and age-specific trends for property and violent crime. Results: Over the last 15 years in NSW the rate of Indigenous arrest for violent offences has declined by nearly 37 per cent (36.81%), while the rate of Indigenous arrest for property crime has declined by almost 33 per cent (32.95%). The falls are apparent for both males and females but are most pronounced among Indigenous arrests for violent crime for males aged 15-19 (down 55.96%) and those aged 20-24 (down 58.44%). Conclusion: If these trends continue, rates of Indigenous imprisonment may stabilize or grow less rapidly than in the past few years Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statics and Research, 2016. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue paper no. 117: Accessed October 12, 2016 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/BB/Report-2016-Trends-in-Indigenous-offending-NSW-2001-2015-BB117.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/BB/Report-2016-Trends-in-Indigenous-offending-NSW-2001-2015-BB117.pdf Shelf Number: 140682 Keywords: Arrest Rates Indigenous OffendersIndigenous Peoples |
Author: Willis, Matthew Title: Property Crime and Indigenous Offenders Summary: It is well recognised that Indigenous offenders are over-represented within the Australian criminal justice system. In response to this, researchers have attempted to identify the factors contributing to Indigenous offending. Such studies have tended to look at Indigenous offending and engagement with the criminal justice system as a whole, across the full range of different offence types, or have focused on violent crime (Memmott et al. 2001; Bryant & Willis 2008; Wundersitz 2010). Little attention has been paid to Indigenous involvement in other specific forms of crime, such as property offending. While violent crime (specifcally acts intended to cause injury) accounts for the largest proportion of recorded Indigenous offenders (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2016a) and prisoners (ABS 2016c), a substantial number of Indigenous people are imprisoned or otherwise sanctioned for property offences each year. Understanding and addressing factors contributing to Indigenous involvement in property crime can also potentially contribute to reducing Indigenous over- representation (Weatherburn 2014). This paper aims to assist policymakers and practitioners by filling some of the gaps in knowledge about Indigenous involvement in property crime. The brief first overviews the extent of Indigenous involvement in property crime and draws some comparisons between nature and rates of property crime committed by Indigenous offenders and non- Indigenous offenders. Some of the main theoretical explanations for involvement in property offending across the overall population are examined and related to property offending by Indigenous people. The brief draws on unpublished research data to further explore the nature of Indigenous property offending and also examines some initiatives that aim to reduce this offending. For the purposes of this paper, 'property crime' will encompass the offences of robbery; unlawful entry with intent/break and enter (burglary); all thefts; fraud; and property damage as classified under the Australian and New Zealand Standard Offence Classification. Robbery is usually considered a violent crime as the actual or threatened use of violence is an element of the offence that is more serious than the theft element. However, the factors contributing to involvement in robbery and patterns of incidence for robbery tend to align more closely with crimes such as burglary than they do with violent crimes such as assault. For instance, rates of robbery in Australia and internationally have been declining in recent years to an extent that is consistent with property crime trends but not with violent crime trends (van Dijk, Tseloni & Farrell 2012). Violent crime has also declined but over a shorter period and with greater fluctuation (Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) 2016; Nelson 2015). Therefore, robbery will be considered a property crime for the purposes of this paper; this approach has been undertaken in other recent studies of property crime (Brown 2015). Details: Sydney: Indigenous Justice Clearinghouse, 2018. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Brief 23: Accessed july 26, 2018 at: https://www.indigenousjustice.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/mp/files/publications/files/property-crime-willis-fracchini-rb23-ijc.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: https://www.indigenousjustice.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/mp/files/publications/files/property-crime-willis-fracchini-rb23-ijc.pdf Shelf Number: 150922 Keywords: BurglaryCrime StatisticsIndigenous OffendersIndigenous PeoplesProperty CrimeRobberyTheft |