Peter Neyroud CBE QPM Institute of Criminology University of Cambridge

Transcription

1 Peter Neyroud CBE QPM Institute of Criminology University of Cambridge

2 Overview The Gateway to the criminal justice system: principles and practice A Crime Harm approach Operation Turning Point deterrence and desistance Lessons for developing the Gateway?

3 Why does the Gateway matter? Systematic review of all studies on juvenile court processing finds juvenile court does not reduce reoffending overall. Most studies: backfiring effect Almost all of the results are negative in direction, as measured by prevalence, incidence, severity, and self-report outcomes. Petrosino et al. (2010) 35 years, 29 studies, over 7,000 juveniles

4 Gateway has evolved In 1970 s Cautioning a sensible and useful way of dealing with certain types of offender, and that police discretion not to prosecute is exercised widely (Steer, 1970: 59). By 2011 Out of court disposals accounted for around 38% of disposals Conditional cautions introduced in 2003 Informal Warnings expanded and added restorative justice Proposed changes Government consultation about community remedy closed in March 2013 And proposing new guidelines at least 7 th new set since 1980

5 A Gateway under fire?

6 Conditional Cautioning an unevaluated experiment

7 Conditional Cautions current conditions

8 Research on cautioning and out of court disposals? In 1963 Rose and Hamilton (1970) conducted the only UK randomised controlled trial of police use of cautions Compared simple cautioning with cautioning plus supervision Found that supervision did not substantially affect recidisvism Studies since have shown Instant cautions may work better than deferred (Giller, 1981) Cautions may net-widen (Farrington and Bennett, 1981) Cautioning may be discriminatory (Landau and Nathan, 1983) Cautions have not always been applied consistently (Mott, 1983, Laycock and Tarling, 1985, Giller and Tutt, 1987, Sandars, 1988 and Evans and Wilkinson, 1990) Cautions using restorative justice look promising (Young and Goold, 1999) But none have tested effectiveness of caution v prosecution in an RCT despite Farrington and Bennett calling for such a test in 1981

9 What should work? The evidence Evidence shows swiftness and certainty of punishment are more important to deter offenders than harsh punishment. Swiftness: Turning Point offenders must report to Offender Managers the first business day after arrest. The longer the gap between an offence and punishment, the less it works. Sword of Damocles Certainty: The threat of certain prosecution if offenders breach a plan. Evidence shows that threat of swift and certain punishment can be more effective than the punishment itself. Story of the Sword of Damocles: The threat of certain punishment To stop a braggart from boasting, the king orders him to dine sitting under a sword suspended by a thin silk thread. The king s threat is that if the braggart utters just one boast, the king will cut the thread so the sword kills him. The braggart successfully eats many, many meals without boasting.

10 The Gateway tests? Suffiency of Evidence Public Interest to Prosecute

11 Potential principles for the Gateway? Effectiveness Reduced Harm Reduced reoffending Efficiency Cost-benefit Legitimacy Victims Public offenders

12 What if evidence was used to redesign? Harm: triaging offenders to treatment based on their potential risk of harm Combining Deterrence and Desistance in the treatments pre-court Improving the consistency of treatment pre-court Providing better needs and risk analysis to match treatment to offender Giving victims a better service

13 Applying Harm: The Crime Harm triage A random sample of 100,000 records from the UK Police National Computer s Phoenix criminal records database Produces over 3,000,000 data items about the 100,000 offenders Replicating Berk et al. (2009) model with the larger database Using statistical analysis to model the factors predicting serious harm

14 High, Medium and low risk offenders High Risk (2%) Neither High nor Low Risk (36%) Low Risk (62%) Cosma, Sherman and Neyroud (forthcoming)

15 Deterrence and Desistance: Operation Turning Point Hypothesis is that police can prevent crime by a combined treatment Holding a prosecution over the offender (Deterrence) Agreeing a contract to support the offender to stop offending (Desistance) But insisting on compliance in return for nonprosecution (Deterrence) Treatment is a deferred prosecution with conditions, targeted at the 60+% of offenders who can be assessed as a low risk of serious harm Method is an Randomised Controlled Trial 15

16 Operation Turning Point Sample: offenders whom the police have decided to prosecute, who are: Low risk offenders Who have no previous conviction (they may have previous cautions or other diversions) or one prior conviction (more than 5 years ago if an adult and 2 years ago if juvenile). And offence is not likely to result in instant prison sentence Randomly assigning them to prosecution or police offender management Developing and testing a standard protocol of tactics for police offender management

17 The Turning Point Experiment Sample of offenders whom the police have decided to prosecute. Random assignment Prosecutio n Turning Point Comparing like with like: Measure reoffending, cost, victim satisfaction

18 Decision making Eight filters/factors: Prosecution Previous convictions Likely sentence Safety check Sensitive case Victims wishes Any other reason Assigned to Prosecution or Turning Point

19 The Randomiser: the Cambridge Gateway

20 What s Involved? Voluntary participation Agreed Turning- Point Plan Compliance = no prosecution Non-compliance Failure to keep to plan Reoffending Breach Prosecution

21 Turning Point Phases Phase 1 Court only Phase 2 TPP only Phase 3 Randomised: Expanding to all Birmingham 424 Phase 4 Randomised: High Treatment as Assigned: Aiming for 400 cases

22 Turning Point Conditions Restoration/Reparation 65% Compensation 40% Community Payback 36% Letter of Apology 20% Rehabilitation 58% SMART Team 36% Employment 16% Mental Health 11% Housing 5% Anger management 2% Debt 2% Drug Search 2% Movement Constraint 33% Exclusion Zone 27% Not to Contact Victim 15% Requirement to comply with contract and stop offending under threat of prosecution Desistance Deterrence

23 Turning Point Crime Types N=205 Threatening words and behaviour/har rassment 6% Other 12% Drugs 12% Property 32% Criminal Damage 12% Violent 26%

24 Conditional Cautions/Out-of-Court Disposals: Quality of implementation Tremendous potential Reduce reoffending Satisfy victims Cut criminal justice costs Substantial risks Ineffective/backfiring conditions Upset victims Loss of public trust and confidence

25

26 Consistency: Improving Decision-Making Officer Discretion Supported Decision- Making Prescribed Decision- Making

27 Early decision-making Guidance was key A few inappropriate inclusions (reviewed and charged) and exclusions: PIC is a severe alcoholic and I fear that turning point maybe too late for him. Offender showed intent. No remorse. PIC has already been given the opportunity to complete restorative justice and refused to co-operate. Longstanding ongoing neighbour dispute.

28 Basic Decision Support IT

29 Quality of Conditions )

30 Findings: Portal Highly effective at ensuring conditions are S.M.A.R.T., when it s used Guidance but flexible Can be adapted to increase or decrease discretion However, issues around choosing which pathway Pathways are only as good as our partners

31 A better service for Victims Block randomisation of all cases to personal victim or no The randomised samples of victims (TPP or Prosecution) interviewed Interviews from Stages 1&2 used to redesign service Interviews from Stage 4 under way to compare treatment and control

32 Template: Victim Contacts Begin with restorative questions Discuss police motives what we think we can accomplish here and compare with likely court outcomes Focus on why desired outcomes for victim, offender Most have been over the phone

33 Victim Feedback: Officers I m very grateful, they did everything that they said they were going to do even though they are very stretched. For me it all went very smoothly, they were very supportive after it happened, they looked after me, I felt safe, I felt listened to, I never once felt they weren't taking me seriously or he wasn t being punished or anything like that. because of the compassion showed during the whole process towards my son. The compassion and efficiency it was dealt with. The people we spoke to were very personable. I got the impression that they were on our side, that this was an affront to our family. It was actually a really nice process because they were very supportive on the opinions of myself and my son.

34 Victim RCT Outcome the Turning Point sample was 45% more satisfied by the handling of their cases (50% Satisfied or Very Satisfied on the court side, 72.5% on the Turning Point side). Slothower, M.P. (2014)

35 Level of Service / Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) Risk-Need-Responsivity Match the level of service to the offender s risk to reoffend Maximize the offender s ability to learn from a rehabilitative intervention by tailoring the intervention to the learning style, motivation, abilities and strengths of the offender. Assess criminogenic needs and target them in treatment Andrews & Bontha (2007)

36 Why LS/CMI? Risk Score prediction or Recidivism Message: The LS/CMI risk score is a valid measure of recidivism. Source: Voss, Cullen & Smith (2008) Message: Following the full RNR strategy has higher reduction in recidivism. Source: Bonta & Andrews (2007)

37 Offender Manager Quotes At present we do not have an accurate method to evaluate and record risk. Much of our risk assessments are based on gut feeling tied in with a quantitative assessment based on the number of convictions etc. Which is often hugely inaccurate It is a proven tool to effectively assess and manage risk which is easily defensible. It gives credence to your risk assessment and ensures that you are focussing your time on the right people and that you are addressing their needs appropriately to reduce recidivism I have received no offender management training and I believe the current IOM system is flawed in it assessment criteria

38 What if? Low Harm offenders triaged to treatments supported by deferred prosecution and high harm to offender management Integrated approach by Police and partners to combined deterrence/desistance Improved professional decision-making and practice Better service to victims And it may be cost-effective results will tell