Editorial

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, Volume 2, Issue 1.

Jane L. Ireland and Philip Birch

Welcome to the first edition of the JCRPP for 2016. The previous year was certainly busy and we have seen increased interest in submissions. What has already become apparent from the papers, either published or under consideration, is just how wide ranging the scope of the JCRPP is. This is a likely reflection of the diverse issues that professionals in this field of practice face and the types of analysis and interpretation needed in their work. Furthermore, a feature of criminological, legal and psychological practice is the focus on the trajectory of an individual across their lifetime and on those involved in offending, the victims, the affected communities and those working to protect these communities.

The current edition is no exception in continuing to address the broad aims and applications of the journal. The current edition focuses on the journey an individual takes from being arrested to being rehabilitated through treatment and re-employment. Also captured is the importance of attending to victims of crime, with specific reference to sexual abuse and the recognition that contact with the criminal justice system can contribute to re-victimisation.

We commence the current edition with a paper considering an often neglected area of study, namely, that of re-arrest. This in itself is interesting, but the notable value of this paper is in the chosen population, namely, substance users. This population has not received the attention it has deserved in relation to other offender groups concerning treatment provision within the Criminal Justice sector. This is perhaps a result of substance use difficulties running comorbid with other conditions of interest such as personality disorder and psychopathy, conditions that have received more academic interest. Indeed, it could be argued that substances have long been considered the correlate of other, more significant conditions, which is perhaps why limited attention has been given. The paper by Albert Kopak, Stephen Proctor and Norman G. Hoffman offers some powerful indicators of what can impact on re-arrest rates for substance using offenders. The longitudinal nature of this work, with a large sample of offenders, makes it a noteworthy read not only due to the analysis but also due to the wider content of the paper. Younger age, unemployment and relapse into substance use were all reliable indicators of re-arrest. Drug dependence, as opposed to alcohol dependence, was also associated with increased re-arrest. Outpatient treatment was associated with a reduced likelihood of re-arrest, suggesting that intervention can have a positive impact and does not have to be completed within secure services. This is a critical finding and as the authors note, community-based intervention could have the added benefit easy access to support from those considered meaningful to the offender (e.g. family members).

This paper is then followed by one that considers the specific challenges in trying to research sensitive yet important areas within the criminal justice system, in this instance the loss of life following police contact. David Baker presents a thought-provoking paper on this topic and not only outlines the difficulties in this important area of study but also offers some solutions. Thus the paper offers something that many can fail to do so where attention is given only to describing the problem and offering no solution; this is a criticism that has been levied at academic offerings to applied practice. David Baker avoids such criticism by commenting on adaptions to data collection and approaches, highlighting how such innovative approaches are not restricted to this topic but have a much broader application. This is perhaps the key benefit of this paper and readers are encouraged to look beyond the specific topic under consideration and instead ask themselves how these innovative principles can be applied to other hard-to-reach research areas. It is also an engaging and well written piece. The analogy to The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and the challenges to accessing information of considerable interest is an entertaining one; indeed we are sure many researchers reading this paper will sympathise with the challenges researchers trying to access sensitive areas of research can face and those moments where we have all felt a little like Arthur Dent.

This is then followed by a paper by Margaret Vickers, Philip Birch, Sally Gallovic and Michael Kennedy on a related area to the one captured in the previous paper, but this time focusing on the surveillance of police officers and their perception of this in an increasingly technologically driven world. This exploratory qualitative study presents the concept of surveillance by others (i.e. the organisation, other officers) as well as self-surveillance. Although on the surface such surveillance may be considered positive and perhaps seemingly assisting with gathering information on practice and police contacts, the negative impacts become quickly apparent. The “panopticon” effect, which captures the increased control over practice, may meet its goal of ensuring compliance, but the question of interest is what are the actual impacts of such on police practice and those delivering it? This preliminary study suggests that being under such constant surveillance, whether this is by others or by oneself, does little to promote health and well-being among officers who are already delivering demanding duties. The question then becomes where can the balance be struck? Clearly there needs to be surveillance of those in any position of authority but at what point does this actually damage police practice and those conducting it. Some personality structures are unlikely to manage other or self-imposed surveillance well, suggesting that making officers aware of this panopticon effect is essential both during training programmes, but also as part of recruitment drives so those most resilient at coping with constant surveillance are selected. Whether or not this will actually lead to the most effective officers is yet to be demonstrated and the authors argue for consideration to be given to longitudinal research in this area.

Moving beyond policing and re-arrest the edition then moves on to consider arguably one of the most under-researched groups in the criminological arena, ex-prisoners and in particular those with mental health problems. As with the earlier paper on substance use offenders this highlights the lack of attention given to a group of offenders who are perhaps struggling the most in terms of maintaining rehabilitation. In an earlier edition of JCRPP we commented on the difficulties in using the term “ex-prisoner” or “ex-offender” as a result of its stigmatising label. You could be forgiven therefore for considering the joining of the terms “ex-prisoner” and “mentally ill offender” to perhaps represent the most stigmatising of all. The paper by Ian Hamilton highlights the problems that these individuals face in trying to secure employment; not only difficulties in securing employment but also in the availability of employment for such individuals. What is helpful about this paper is not just the focus given to the problem of employment but also, as with the paper by David Baker, the attention given to solutions of this problem. The author outlines an approach, yet to be evaluated, focusing specifically on the reintegration of such individuals into the community through assisting them to acquire and sustain employment using the approach of Individual Placement and Support – namely, a “placement and train” approach as opposed to a “train and then place” approach. What is particularly interesting from the paper, however, is a finding that is hidden away in the text and yet is perhaps the most valuable, namely, that ex-prisoners/offenders may be relying on their own social networks to secure employment. The quality of these social networks are clearly an important consideration and the risk for gravitating to further offending or being exploited in low-paid positions becomes an increasingly reality. Finally, as with the earlier papers, it also highlights a novel approach to completing research in this area and a more individualised approach to dealing with this area for ex-prisoners; the need to focus on the individual as opposed to the generic term used to describe them (i.e. ex-prisoner; mentally ill offender) is clearly essential.

Next we have a paper that moves our focus to victims of crime. The paper by Anna Gesoki, Miranda A. H. Horvath and Julia C. Davidson, shifts our attention to the victims of intrafamilial child sexual abuse. The value of this paper is its focus on the responses of professionals involved in these cases, either through child protection and/or criminal justice responses. It continues the theme in this edition of addressing under-researched and sensitive areas of study. The REA presented was a fairly comprehensive one that led to 296 documents being analysed. The message that the paper promotes is clear; the risk to children who have been exposed to sexual abuse are then re-victimised by the systems set up to protect them. Those working in the area of personal injury connected to “historical” child sexual abuse scandals of recent years will certainly recognise the core messages from this paper, namely, that the bureaucratic demands of assessing and testing cases are likely to be re-traumatising for clients. It is important to remain mindful that children who are abused/victimised by those in positions of authority such as parents, guardians or other caregivers, can lead children to transfer their fear to all in authority. This translates to a fear of those who have any control over them such as those who question their accounts (e.g. police, solicitors, etc.). This issue is both a pertinent and essential one, the current paper highlights the need to simply consider the role of authorities, however defined, in their responses to such abuses. The implications for practice offered by Anna Gesoki et al. are consequently sensible and pragmatic, calling for a better awareness of the needs of children in such circumstances, the prioritisation of their needs over process and paperwork, better working across agencies, improved use of special measures in Court and during interviews, and suggesting the use of specialist Courts. The latter is a notable suggestion and any of our readers who work within the Court system will recognise how such a system is not set up to support victims. Indeed, more than an evolution of that system may be required. The time for a revolution of that system may well be needed in the form of more specialist Courts.

This brings us aptly to the final paper in the edition, which captures the importance of relationships between children and their caregivers (i.e. reciprocal roles) and how these developed patterns of behaving may begin to feature in later adult functioning. In this final article Rachel Worthington invites readers to consider how a component of Cognitive Analytic Therapy (CAT), specifically reciprocal roles, can inform our approach to offender treatment. It centres on approaches to addressing victim empathy and highlights the marked limitations in this area of study that tries to demonstrate how victim empathy training can actually impact on re-offending rates. It is a paper that brings the edition full circle, where we commenced by considering the indicators for re-arrest and the importance of relapse prevention; Worthington’s paper considers how relapse prevention can potentially be improved by applying reciprocal role procedures.

This debate is not new and those being trained in offending behaviour programmes may remember that the inclusion of “victim empathy” modules was not based on the fact that this was a known offending-behaviour factor open to positive change, but that politically it was thought sensible to include “victim empathy” as a treatment target. The current paper suggests that such a treatment target can remain but the means by which offending behaviour programmes have been trying to promote change have not been effective. They fail to account for interactions evidenced between offender and victim and how these have a basis in an offender’s early history and perception of the same. The paper argues that previous work has been challenged by the fact that empathy modules have not been accessible to offenders and that increasing the accessibility of the more standard approaches (e.g. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) could be achieved using CAT as a valuable adjunct.

Overall, we hope that readers appreciate the range of topics and debates that the current edition of JCRPP offers. We feel this edition is unique in presenting a range of areas that are either seldom researched or difficult to research and offer some innovative solutions for their further examination.