Punishing Illness? A Socio-legal Analysis of the Imposition of Custodial Sentences on Mentally Disordered Offenders in English Law and Practice.

惩罚疾病？

• 批准号: 2602266
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University of East Anglia
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2021
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2021 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2602266
• 关键词: Punishing; Illness; Socio; legal; Analysis

A distressing mismatch exists in our criminal justice system - that of mental disorder and prison (Edgar and Rickford, 2009). It is widely recognised that imprisonment can exacerbate mental disorders, heighten vulnerability and increase the risk of self-harm and suicide (Bradley, 2009). Yet, this mismatch is a contemporary reality. Between 10% and 90% of prisoners in England and Wales who are thought to have a mental disorder (Committee of Public Accounts, 2017).At the heart of this mismatch is a conflict between two sentencing purposes: the punishment of offenders, and the reform and rehabilitation of offenders (s. 57(2) Sentencing Act 2020 ("SA"). Given the prevalence of mental disorders in prison, it is possible that the courts are prioritising the retributive punishment of mentally disordered offenders (MDOs) at the expense of their reform and rehabilitation (O'Loughlin, 2021).This is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, the culpability of some MDOs may have been reduced or eliminated by their mental disorder at the time of the offence(s) (Mullan, 2019). These MDOs may therefore not deserve the punishment of imprisonment (Ashworth, 2015). Secondly, imprisonment frequently prevents MDOs from receiving the quality of treatment they could have received in the community (Peay, 2014).Judges and magistrates need clear guidance on how to take account of mental disorders in their custodial decision-making. Some guidance is provided in s. 232(3) SA (formerly s. 157(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003). Section 232(3) SA obliges sentencers to consider the following when deciding whether to impose a custodial sentence on a MDO: the offender's mental disorder; and, the impact of a custodial sentence on that disorder and on any possible treatment for it.However, there is no comprehensive data on how mental disorders affect sentencing practice (Sentencing Council, 2020). Therefore, we do not know if (or how) the courts are fulfilling their obligation under s. 232(3) SA. The high rate of MDOs in prison suggests that s. 232(3) SA has been overlooked by sentencers - as does the limited reference to s. 157(3) in appellate court judgments. But, following the publication of Sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders, neurological impairments (Sentencing Council, 2020) - the new guideline for sentencing MDOs - it is possible that sentencers will now always fulfil their obligation under s. 232(3) SA.This socio-legal research project will employ qualitative methods (i.e. doctrinal analysis and empirical study) to explore the extent to which:- sentencing law provides an appropriate framework for sentencing mentally disordered offenders to prison; and- judges and magistrates take account of mental disorders when considering the imposition of a custodial sentence.As a part of this exploration, this project will test the following hypotheses:- 'Judges and magistrates pay little attention to the obligation in s. 232(3) SA.'- 'The new guideline helps to ensure that judges and magistrates fulfil their obligation under s. 232(3) SA.'

在我们的刑事司法系统中存在着一种令人痛苦的不匹配——精神障碍和监狱的不匹配（Edgar和Rickford， 2009）。人们普遍认为，监禁会加剧精神障碍，增加脆弱性，增加自残和自杀的风险（Bradley, 2009）。然而，这种不匹配是当代的现实。在英格兰和威尔士，10%到90%的囚犯被认为患有精神障碍（公共账目委员会，2017）。这种不匹配的核心是两种量刑目的之间的冲突：惩罚罪犯，以及罪犯的改造和改造(第57（2)条2020年量刑法（“SA”））。鉴于监狱中精神障碍的普遍存在，法院可能会优先考虑对精神障碍罪犯（MDOs）的报复性惩罚，而牺牲他们的改造和康复（O'Loughlin, 2021）。这有两个问题。首先，一些犯罪嫌疑人在犯罪时的精神障碍可能减轻或消除了他们的罪责（Mullan, 2019）。因此，这些债务抵押债券可能不应该受到监禁的惩罚（Ashworth, 2015）。其次，监禁往往使mdo得不到他们在社区中可以得到的高质量治疗（Peay, 2014）。法官和地方法官需要明确的指导，说明如何在作出监禁决策时考虑到精神障碍。《SA》第232(3)条（原《2003年刑事司法法案》第157(3)条）提供了一些指导。第232(3)条规定，在决定是否对MDO判处监禁时，量刑人必须考虑以下因素：罪犯的精神障碍；监禁判决对这种疾病的影响以及对任何可能的治疗方法的影响。然而，没有关于精神障碍如何影响量刑实践的全面数据（量刑委员会，2020）。因此，我们不知道法院是否（或如何）履行了第232(3)条规定的义务。监狱中债务抵押债券的高比率表明，判决人员忽视了第232(3)条，上诉法院判决中对第157(3)条的有限引用也是如此。但是，在《对患有精神障碍、发育障碍和神经障碍的罪犯进行量刑》（量刑委员会，2020年）——对mdo进行量刑的新指南发布之后，现在有可能使量刑者始终履行其根据SA第232(3)条所承担的义务。这个社会法律研究项目将采用定性方法（即理论分析和实证研究），探讨量刑法在多大程度上为判处精神失常罪犯入狱提供了适当的框架；法官和地方法官在考虑判处监禁时也会考虑精神障碍。作为这一探索的一部分，本项目将检验以下假设：-“法官和地方法官很少注意联邦法典第232(3)条中的义务。-“新的指导方针有助于确保法官和地方法官履行第232(3)条规定的义务。”