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

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（埃德加和里克福德，2009年）。人们普遍认为，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（布拉德利，2009年）。然而，这种不匹配是当代的现实。英格兰和威尔士10%至90%的囚犯被认为患有精神障碍（公共账户委员会，2017年）。这种不匹配的核心是两个量刑目的之间的冲突：惩罚罪犯，以及罪犯的改革和康复（S. 57（2）《2020年量刑法》（“SA”）。鉴于精神障碍在监狱中的普遍存在，法院可能会优先考虑对精神障碍罪犯（MDO）的报复性惩罚，而牺牲他们的改革和康复（O 'Loughlin，2021）。首先，一些MDO的罪责可能因其在犯罪时的精神障碍而减少或消除（Mullan，2019）。因此，这些MDO可能不应该受到监禁的惩罚（Ashworth，2015）。第二，监禁往往使精神障碍患者无法获得他们在社区中本可以获得的高质量治疗（Peay，2014）。法官和治安法官需要明确指导，说明如何在其拘留决策中考虑精神障碍。在S中提供了一些指导。232（3）SA（formerly s.）2003年《刑事司法法》第157（3）条。SA第232（3）条规定，在决定是否对MDO判处监禁时，执法人员必须考虑以下因素：罪犯的精神障碍;以及监禁判决对该障碍及其任何可能的治疗的影响。然而，没有关于精神障碍如何影响判刑实践的全面数据（量刑理事会，2020年）。我们不知道他们的行为是怎样的，他们的行为是怎样的。232（3）SA.监狱中MDO的高比率表明。232（3）SA被忽略了，因为有限的参考s。157（3）在上诉法院的判决。但是，随着《对精神障碍、发育障碍、神经障碍的罪犯判刑》（判刑理事会，2020年）--对MDO判刑的新指南--的出版，判刑者现在有可能总是履行他们在《公约》下的义务。232（3）SA.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），以探讨：-判刑法为判处精神错乱罪犯入狱提供适当的架构;及-法官和裁判官在考虑判处监禁刑罚时，会考虑精神错乱的情况。作为这项研究的一部分，本项目将测试以下假设：法官和地方法官很少注意s中的义务。232（3）SA.新指引有助确保法官及裁判官履行其在《基本法》下的责任。232（3）SA. '

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.'