Truth or Justice? Double Jeopardy Reform for Queensland: Rights in Jeopardy

This paper discusses proposed reforms to double jeopardy contained within the Criminal Code (Double Jeopardy) Amendment Bill 2007 (Qld) which is likely to be passed by Queensland's parliament later this year. The paper argues that the development of double jeopardy rules and the reform debate has been muddied by doctrinal confusion over whether double jeopardy is primarily a procedural right for the protection of accused individuals or a procedural rule to protect the institutional integrity of judicial outcomes. The paper critically examines the underlying rationales for double jeopardy protections along with arguments in support of the proposed reforms. The discussion of the proposed Queensland provisions takes place with regard to similar reforms that have been recently implemented in the UK and NSW and which are planned for New Zealand

The interactions of disability and impairment

Theoretical work on disability is going through an expansive period, built on the growing recognition of disability studies as a discipline and out of the political and analytical push to bring disability into a prominent position within accounts of the intersecting social categories that shape people's lives. A current debate within critical disability studies is whether that study should include impairment and embodiment within its focus. This article argues it should and does so by drawing from symbolic interactionism and embodiment literatures in order to explore how differences in what bodies can do-defined as impairments-come to play a role in how people make sense of themselves through social interaction. We argue that these everyday interactions and the stories we tell within them and about them are important spaces and narratives through which impairment and disability are produced. Interactions and stories are significant both in how they are shaped by wider social norms, collective stories and institutional processes, and also how they at times can provide points of resistance and challenges to such norms, stories and institutions. Therefore, the significance of impairment and interaction is the role they play in both informing self-identity and also broader dynamics of power and inequality

Criminals and (Second-Class) Citizenship: Twenty-First Century Attainder?

This article considers whether criminal offenders in Australia are second-class citizens. Using TH Marshall's seminal conception of citizenship, the article discusses various ways in which offenders' civil, political and social rights are delimited in Australia. While acknowledging that the liberty of prisoners is curtailed - which is the defining and necessarily punitive feature of imprisonment - the article argues that the legal system goes further, imposing a range of collateral consequences on offenders that seriously infringe other fundamental rights. Using penological and liberal theories, consideration is given to the question of whether the impairment of offenders' fundamental citizenship rights can be justified. It is argued that the impairment of rights discussed is not theoretically justifiable, and is arguably best explained as an anachronistic remnant of attainder. Conviction of felony renders a man for ever infamous in England, - infamous in law, - and attaches to him for life certain disabilities, which incapacitate him for exercising some of the rights and duties of citizenship. It is not enough that the felon pay the immediate penalty which the law awards to his crime. Other consequences, both legal and moral, flow from the fact of the conviction. So accordant is all this with the spirit and feeling of the British people, as well as with the genius of British institutions, that there is not, perhaps, in all England, a public body of any description, - not even a single benefit society, - or even a convivial club, - in which the conviction of a member for felony is not instantly followed by the expulsion of the member so convicted from the society to which he belongs 崨ereby declaring the universal feeling of the entire British people, that a convicted felon is unworthy both of future trust and of mingling with and participating in the provident arrangements or the social enjoyments of his former associates and fellow subjects.1Arts, Education & Law Group, School of LawFull Tex

Solution-focused court programs for mentally impaired offenders: What works?

Solution-focused courts for mentally impaired offenders have proliferated in the United States and Australia. A growing body of research shows that these courts can indeed succeed in reducing recidivism among mentally impaired offenders, at least in the short term. But the evaluative research does not reveal which elements of solution-focused courts are responsible for achieving that effect. This article discusses the research into "what works" with mentally impaired offenders in the solution-focused context. It is argued that, with growing pressure on resources and the move to mainstream solution-focused approaches in courts, it is important to understand which features are efficacious, so that evidence-based practices can be imple- mented. Various aspects of solution-focused programs are examined, including the efficacy of competing rehabilitative models, voluntary participa- tion by offenders (as leveraged by the prospect of a reduced sentence), the role of the judicial officer, rewards and sanctions, multidisciplinary collaboration, and the provision of services. Finally, this article considers which mentally impaired offenders are most likely to benefit from a solution-focused approach.Arts, Education & Law Group, School of LawFull Tex

Why do mental health courts work? A confluence of treatment, support & adroit judicial supervision

The article contributes to the understanding of 'what works' in mental health courts (MHCs). There are now almost 400 MHCs in the US and more worldwide. A substantial body of evidence demonstrates that MHCs can succeed in reducing recidivism among offenders who suffer mental disorders. This article argues that MHCs succeed when they have achieved the right confluence of essential elements, including providing evidence-based treatment and psychosocial supports and using adroit judge-craft. After a brief review of some of the studies demonstrating MHC success, this article discusses the research into the necessary foundations of rehabilitation programs. It is argued that, although treatment and psychosocial services should be supplied within an evidence-based framework, neither of the two leading conceptual models - Risk-Needs-Responsivity and the Good Lives Model - are empirically proven with offenders who suffer from mental disorders. Despite the absence of proof, the Good Lives Model is argued to be appropriate for MHCs because it is normatively consonant with therapeutic jurisprudence. The MHC judge is another essential element. The judicial role is assayed to elucidate how it functions to promote the rehabilitation of offenders with mental disorders. It is argued that the role of the MHC judge during supervisory status hearings is to establish a therapeutic alliance and practice motivational psychology with each MHC participant