Search results

The purpose of this study is to describe what a sample of men in prison believe works well for the delivery of prison-based group alcohol and other drug (AoD) treatment programs. The authors hope the findings will help inform future practise in AoD program delivery in prison.

A qualitative research paper reporting on a thematic analysis of in-depth interviews with 30 male prisoners on their perspectives on AoD group treatment approaches.

Results indicate that matching readiness and motivation to start treatment is important for group success. Program content must be relevant and delivered by empathic facilitators who maintain confidentiality. It would be advantageous if one of the program facilitators was a peer with personal experience of overcoming an AoD use disorder.

According to the authors’ knowledge, this is one of few qualitative studies into the delivery of AoD treatment for men in prison and the only study of its kind in Australia. The consumer perspective is an important element in improving quality of treatment provision.

This paper proposes a framework to better understand ex‐prisoner health, and pilot‐tests the framework using qualitative interviews with ten people who have been out of prison for two years or more. The proposed framework considers different stages of re‐entry (from pre‐incarceration through to post‐release), individual and structural factors influencing health, and health outcomes.

The authors conducted qualitative, open‐ended interviews with ex‐prisoners released from prison two or more years ago, who could be considered to have transitioned “successfully” out of prison. The aim of the interviews was to generate insights into the strategies that ex‐prisoners use to negotiate the post‐release period.

Most of the themes that emerged from interviews were consistent with the proposed framework. Structural factors are important concerns for ex‐prisoners that may have to be resolved before other issues, such as drug addiction, can be addressed. However, these findings suggest that it is inappropriate to view health‐related experiences during re‐entry as homogenous, given the diversity of individual characteristics and backgrounds among ex‐prisoners, notably including pre‐incarceration social status.

To explain the health‐related experiences of people following their release from prison, we need to think beyond reintegration and move beyond homogenous notions of the ex‐prisoner population. Addressing sociocultural, demographic and incarceration‐specific factors that ameliorate or intensify the challenges faced by ex‐prisoners is of critical importance.

Across countless generations, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have had a vision for the health and well-being of all elements of Australia and its people. This includes directions for preventing inequity, crime, environmental degradation and illness. But the paths to take – and the knowledges that exist – have long been flooded by a negative discourse about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that blames, shames and discriminates, locating over-representation in prisons and poor health and well-being as a cultural deficit, apportioned to individuals rather than the complex systems and politics of knowledge construction that surround it. Rural criminology has an opportunity to change tracks to redress the lack of cultural competence training and cultural safety planning among its workforce – the 97 percent who have the power to create change for the small and young population of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This chapter identifies steps in the path to change and opportunities for rural criminology including identifying shared determinants of justice and health, decolonising evidence for decision-making and improving accountability including through partnerships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community leaders. This chapter asserts a freedom and confidence that emanates from decolonising methodologies, reflexivity in research and meeting aspirations of local community Elders and leaders with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural values and strengths. ‘Next steps’ in constructing a more culturally responsive rural criminology are presented, with a summary of roles and spheres of influence to consider.

Criminology and criminal justice research in Australia that involves Indigenous peoples or has an Indigenous focus currently needs to follow guidelines of the National Health and Medical Research Council National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (Updated 2018) and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies (2012). However, neither of these documents specifically focus on research or evaluations in the criminology and criminal justice space, resulting in discipline-specific gaps. Drawing from both the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous and post-colonial literature on research ethics, our chapter focuses on three core questions: (a) What does ‘free, prior and informed consent’ to participate in research mean and how should it be obtained and operationalised in criminology and criminal justice research involving Indigenous peoples and communities? (b) What does the requirement that research be ‘for the benefit of Indigenous peoples’ mean in the context of criminal justice research? and (c) How can ethical guidelines ensure that Indigenous-focussed criminological and criminal justice research and evaluation enhance and support Indigenous peoples’ empowerment and self-determination?

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

Over the past decade, criminology in Australia, Canada and other settler colonies has increasingly engaged with activist challenges to the penal system. These anti-carceral engagements have been levelled at its laws, institutions and agents. Following a long history of criminology explicating and buttressing penal institutions, the criminological gaze slowly transitioned in the 1970s to a more critical lens, shifting focus from the people who are criminalised to the harms of the apparatus that criminalises. However, the focus remained steadfastly on institutions and dominant players – until much more recently. The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the strength of activist organisations and grassroots movements in affecting change and shaping debates in relation to the penal system. This chapter will explore the role of activism in informing criminological scholarship during the pandemic period and how criminologists, in turn, have increasingly recognised the need to build alliances and collaborations with grassroots activists and engage in their own activism. The chapter focuses primarily on Australian and Canadian criminology and its growing imbrication with the prison abolition movement, especially in the shadow of ongoing colonial violence. It considers how activist scholars, including ourselves, attempt to build movements for structural change in the criminal system and beyond.

This chapter provides an overview of the volume, beginning with anecdotes from the editors. These anecdotes demonstrate the range of issues facing Indigenous scholars and researchers who choose to work with Indigenous participants and/or communities. Reference is made to Indigenous research sovereignty, honouring the immense work undertaken by previous Indigenous scholars, enabling many today to work effectively with their own people as well as other Indigenous groups. This is considered a courageous act, given the vulnerability this opens Indigenous peoples up to in terms of the change that is engendered and the criticism from external non-Indigenous researchers that has often arisen. The organisation of the volume into three parts is discussed, and this chapter ends with synopses of the following 16 chapters.