Mental Health System and Remand Prisoners

With the news today that an inmate had escaped from the supposedly secure Brentwood unit at Glenside Hospital came the revelation that he was apparently on remand for Assault.

Assuming that "on remand," in the context of that news article, means "remanded in custody" then serious questions need to be asked about why prison inmates are being held in institutions other than prisons. The Correctional Services Act provides that prisoners should be housed in prisons.

Whilst it is important that people in prison with a mental health problem receive proper treatment and care, it is also important that proper safeguards are in place to ensure to people who are imprisoned are being kept separate from the general population of persons who might be at Glenside Hospital. Patients may be in a secure facility at that hospital for any number of reasons -- and it might not be in the best interests of the community for them to be housed together with prisoners.

Here is a link to the article at AdelaideNow, but the content of this article has already changed a couple of times today, so by the time you read it, it may be very different from the article that I read.

Plea bargaining

With the recent publicity about the delays in criminal trials in the District Court, perhaps it is time for us to look at a formal system of plea bargaining.

For a general explanation of exactly what plea bargaining involves, see this article.

Whilst we do have a system of negotiation here in South Australia, this is not done with the direct assistance of the Judges.

The other main difference is that the DPP and Defence Lawyers cannot "agree" a specific sentence that is then rubber-stamped by a Judge. That of course runs a little contrary to our strongly held principals of judicial independence, and that is one of the arguments against such a system.

The one thing that an accused person often craves is certainty. The uncertainty of the sentence that might ultimately be imposed under the current system is a dis-incentive to some accused people pleading guilty to certain offences.

My clients will frequently say things like, "If you can guarantee I'll get 4 years, then I'll plead guilty," but in our current system such a guarantee is not possible.

Even the usually conservative English legal profession has been examining the possible benefits. See this article.

Plea bargaining: not perfect, but it works - Times Online

British judges, lawyers and prosecutors have spent two years hammering out the finer details of how to introduce a similar system here.

It would not be the solution to all of our problems, but it just might help.

An Anniversary To Be Ashamed Of

February 2008 marked the first anniversary of the use of the City Watch House to hold remand prisoners.

The fact that there has been so little outcry about this is a sad reflection on our society.

No matter how much people might want the guilty to be punished, this is about the way we treat the innocent.

To our eternal shame. And the minister admits this may continue for several years.

When a person is first remanded in custody is precisely the time they need contact with loved ones the most, and yet there are no family visits allowed. No proper access to exercise or to education. Correctional services has even had to resort to handing out nicotine patches.

The details are covered in the 2007 Correctional Services Annual Report (2.3Mb pdf).

With the new gaols not due until 2011, and a Government that seems intent on imprisoning more people and for longer periods, something will need to be done soon.

Mental Health and Crime

A recent case has highlighted some of the problems with the "Mental Impairment" provisions of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.

The provisions provide that the period of any supervision order has to be set by reference to the crime and not to the particular person involved. (s269O)

So someone with a very serious mental health issue that poses a danger to themselves and others, who does something that is minor, only gets a short limitation period.

Someone who is no real danger, but does something more serious gets a long limitation period.

The Court has no power to extend the period of the order even where someone is not complying with the conditions of the order!

It is time for the Government to revisit these provisions.

The AFL and Attitudes to Women

In the wake of so many scandals and stories about AFL players, the AFL has produced an educational DVD to help players understand that women are people too - even if they don't play footy.

Not everyone is happy. Michael Smith raises some questions in this opinion piece about the portrayal of women in the DVD. Whilst some of those concerns may be valid, the DVD does seem to include just the sort of situations that these young men, and others, find themselves in.

As a Criminal Defence Lawyer I see them all the time. Just because, in Michael Smith's ideal world, these situations are demeaning and stereotypical, does not mean that it is not what actually happens.

The DVD has even attracted international attention, with an article in The Times Online about consent in sexual offences.

Who knows, next the AFL might tell its players, "Just say no to drugs"

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

A couple of sentencing decisions in the news recently have attracted a lot of public attention. Many people are calling for longer sentences in general, and for mandatory minimum sentences. Very few of these people are actually able to articulate why they would be a positive.

At the time of writing, 89% of people responding to the AdelaideNow Poll support mandatory sentences for Aggravated Cause Death by Dangerous Driving cases. The comments on the story in question follow similar themes - a couple are reproduced verbatim here:

"Crime i sgetting worse and worse and yet these criminals are getting such pathetic sentences"

"lock these criminals up for a lengthy term, show them we will not tolerate it anymore, before things get even worse."

Many of them talk about the fact that the victim was a "good" man - and there is absolutely no doubt that he was, but is that something that should play a role in sentencing? Maybe that is a whole topic in itself.

I want the Government to work at reducing crime.

Increased penalties only serve to appease a public baying for blood. They do not reduce crime. The penalty for stealing used to be transportation to Australia, and it did not stop crime - and that is long before Australia was the migration destination of choice for Brits!

I am told Denis Hood is a reasonably intelligent man, and therefore one would assume that he has read all of the research on the topic of "general deterrence." If he has, then the only motive for this must be political.

That's not putting the Family First.

Christmas Greeting From a Law Firm

From us ("the wishors") to you ("hereinafter called the wishee"):

Please accept without obligation, explicit or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, politically correct, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion or secular practice of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions.

Please also accept, under aforesaid waiver of obligation on your part, our best wishes for a financially successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of this calendar year of the Common Era, but with due respect for the calendars of all cultures or sects, and for the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of computer platform or dietary preference of the wishee.

By accepting this greeting you acknowledge that:

• This greeting is subject to further clarification or withdrawal at the wishor's discretion.
  
• This greeting is freely transferable provided that no alteration shall be made to the original greeting and that the proprietary rights of the wishor are acknowledged.
  
• This greeting implies no warranty on the part of the wishors to fulfill these wishes, nor any ability of the wishors to do so, merely a beneficent hope on the part of the wishors that they in fact occur.
  

This greeting may not be enforceable in certain jurisdictions and/or the restrictions herein may not be binding upon certain wishees in certain jurisdictions and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wishors.

This greeting is warranted to perform as reasonably may be expected within the usual application of good tidings, for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first.

The wishor warrants this greeting only for the limited replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wishor.

Any references in this greeting to "the Lord", "Father Christmas", "Our Saviour", or any other festive figures, whether actual or fictitious, dead or alive, shall not imply any endorsement by or from them in respect of this greeting, and all proprietary rights in any referenced third party names and images are hereby acknowledged.