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

我们的刑事司法系统中存在一个令人痛苦的错位--精神障碍和监狱(Edga和Rickford，2009)。人们普遍认识到，监禁会加剧精神障碍，增加脆弱性，并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，有10%到90%的囚犯被认为有精神障碍(公共账户委员会，2017年)。这种错配的核心是两个量刑目的之间的冲突：惩罚罪犯，以及罪犯的改造和改造(S，57(2)2020年量刑法案(“SA”))。鉴于精神障碍在监狱中的普遍存在，法院可能优先考虑对精神错乱罪犯(MDO)的报应惩罚，而忽视了他们的改造和康复(O‘Loughlin，2021)。这有两个原因。首先，一些MDO的罪责可能因他们在犯罪时的精神障碍而减少或消除(S)(穆兰，2019年)。因此，这些MDO可能不应受到监禁的惩罚(Ashworth，2015)。其次，监禁往往使MDO得不到他们本可以在社区接受的治疗质量(Peay，2014)。法官和治安法官需要明确的指导，如何在他们的拘留决策中考虑到精神障碍。S第232(3)SA(原S 2003年刑事司法法第157(3)条)提供了一些指导意见。第232(3)条SA规定，量刑人员在决定是否对MDO判处监禁时，必须考虑以下因素：犯罪者的精神障碍；监禁判决对该障碍的影响以及任何可能的治疗方法。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S的义务。监狱中MDO的高比率表明，S·232(3)SA被量刑人员忽视了--上诉法院判决中有限地提到S也是如此。但是，随着对患有精神障碍、发育障碍、神经障碍的罪犯的量刑(量刑委员会，2020年)--新的MDO判刑指南--出版后，量刑人员现在有可能始终履行S规定的义务。这一社会-法律研究项目将采用定性方法(即理论分析和实证研究)来探索以下程度：-量刑法律为将精神障碍罪犯判刑入狱提供了适当的框架；和-法官和治安法官在考虑判处监禁时会考虑精神障碍。作为这项探索的一部分，本项目将检验以下假设：-法官和治安法官很少注意S第232(3)SA条下的义务。-新准则有助于确保法官和治安法官履行S规定的义务。232(3)SA条。

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.'